The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-03-28

er to propose, by vote Of tWo-tIlirJ
of both Houses, amendments to the Cor
: stitution. But this bill = PROPOSES at til
] point of the bayonet, tosIOrce ten State
{called States co nominee i'm the billy, {
adopt this Constitutional Amendment, O
i be forever debarred representation In til
government and subject forever to MARTA
/ The original States aodpting the Con
stitution OF the United States, not Statistic
i with the, guarantees OF the Constitution
securing the rights of the States, and TIN
liberties of the people, proposed and adopt
ed with great unanimity, as part of tn
fundamental law of the land, the lively
additional articles now apart of the Con
stitution, which provides as follows.
n" Art. 4. The right of the people to b
secure in their persons, houses, papers ant
effects, against unreasonable searches ant
seizures, shall not be vtoldted /; and no tcar
rant shall issue, but upon probable cause
supported by oath or 0ttirnsdtjon and par
ticularly describing the place to b,
searched, and the person or things to b
| seized" :
! cart. 8. No person, shat be held to an
/ swer for capital or otherwise infamous
crime, unless on presentation or Indictment
by aGrand Jury; nor shall any person b,
deprived of life, liberty or property, wfthou
| Due process of law; nor shall private prop
/ erty be taken for public use,- without jus
/ compensation" u
-. Art. 6. In all criminal prosecutions th,
| accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial by an impartial jury, of thu
/ State. and District wherein the crime
shall have been committed, which Distric
| shall have been previously ascertained by
/ law, &C."
This military bill is direct open, and
| fragrant violation of every article of the
Constitution l have quoted.
No court could fail so to declare, that
was not willing. to stultify itself; or forget
its solemn oath of office to support the
Constitution.
Can it be possible that against such
wrongs there is no relief!
Shall it be said that there is no court OF
competent authority to protect the citizen
and secure to him the writ of personal
liberty" and the right of 6 trial by jury ?''
Is it indeed true,s that the will of the
legislative department of the government
can blot out every clause of the Constitu-
tion, obnoxious to the dominant party, for
the time being, and no court can be found
bold enough to declare this an usurpation,
whose opinion will command respect?
If this be so, why then should the peo-
pie of the ten prescribed States hasten of
their free will to embrace a government
where an unlicensed faction, unrestrained
by conscience or law, has usurped all
power?
Is it by making this act of outrage, our
own, that weeXpect to preserve the Con-
istitution of ourfather's, or restore law and
order to our distracted country?
We surrendered in good faith. And in
good faith have we kept the terms of the
surrender. The fealty of the people of the
ten prescribed States to the Constitution
and the government of the Constitution
none can deny. We accepted in good
faith the reorganization of the State gov
eminent on the plan prescribed by Presi-
dent johnson. He has constantly insisted
on our right to representation in the gov
ernment, under this organization. He
has with Roman firmness, held up the
Constitution as our shield against oppres-
sion, at the peril of his high office, at the
peril of impeachment, aye, at the peril of
his life; and because he and those who
have acted with him, have failed to secure
our Constitutional rights, shall Missis-
sippi change 'front.'" and abandoning her
friends, go oyer to the enemies of the Con-
stitution, with the remote and improbable
hope that at some distant period our
children may regain the rights and privi-
leges and immunities, which we are now
told it is our true interest to surrenders?
While two departments of the Govern
ment, the Executive and the Judiciary,
(the judiciary always the conservative
element) remain true to the Constitution,
shall we, in despair ofGhe rights of the peo-
pie, voluntarily acquiesce in the usurpa.
lions of the law-making power without an
appeal to the Judiciary to save the Con-
stitution and the rights of the people |
under it? But it is said, if not voluntari- |
ly accepted, it will be forced upon you /;
then let it be. But let not Mississippi be |
a party to the wrong and outrage. With |
what equanimity we may, we will submit |
to what is inevitable. "But let us do it |
with that unalterable devotion to the
Constitution, with that untamed spirit of |
conscious rectitude, Immortal as the soul it.
self, born Of the free unconquerable will
that acknowledges bat one master"
In addition to the clauses of the Consti-
tuition ruthlessly disregarded by the pro-
visions of this bill, already quoted, there
is still another to be found in that portion
of the instrument, laying limitations on
the powers of Congress. The 9th Sec, art.
l, declares: - |,
s'That no bill of attainderor ex post fac
to law shall be passed" H. 81
But this bill contains wholesale,sweep-
ing bill of attainder against the people Of
ten States.
The questions have been asked: I. Can
the Supreme Court take cognizance of a
case testing the constitutiOnality of this
act 2. If it should decide the law uncon-
can it enforce its judgment or
decree. f.
The Constitution of the United States
provides: s'That in all cases affecting am
bassadors, or other public ministers and
consuls, and those in which State shall
be party, the Supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction" Il
This clause of the Constitution, and the
powers conferred upon the courts underl
It, underwent elaborate considerations by
The Supreme Court, in the case Of COhensI
VS.. the The State of Virginia; reported in
ith Wheaton's Reports 260. Chief JUS
ice Marshall delivering the opinion of
The Court, says: ''Where, then, the Consti-;I Il
tuition declares the jurisdiction in cases
where a. State shall be party to be origi-
nal, and in all cases arising under the Con- ]
stitution, or law, to be appellate, the con-
clus;on is inevitable that its trainers de- 3
signed to include in the first class (origi-
nal jurisdiction) those cases in which jul
risdiction is given because q State IS q party;
and to include in the second appellate /
urisel4otion) those in which iurisCiction1
Is given because the case arises under the
Constitution or law"
This subject matter of the original jul
OF the Court, again came in re-
view, in the case of the State of Rhode
Island VS.. the State of Massachusetts !; 18th
Peters, Rep, 657, when a bill was filed by
,he State of Rhode Island against the
State of MASSACHUSETTS, claiming jurisdic-
ion and sovereignty over large tract of
;etts. "A motion was made by Mr.. WEBB
,tar and the Attorney General of Massa-
,husetts, in behalf of Massachusetts, TO /
4ismigs the hill hecaI1ga the t(sotlrt had !,