The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-04-10
WEDNESDAY MORNING., APRIL 10, 1867

Third.-Does the bill present case proper for
the interposition of this Court The Constitution
gives to the Federal Judiciary equity jurisdiction,
and it is familiar principle that wherever juris
ticuar branch Of Jurisprudence, it is ample for oil
PURPOSES connected with the subject or the branch
of Jurisprudence Therefore the Jurisdiction of
this court is ample to take cognzance to the full
extent over all subjects Of equity Jurisdiction We
would take cognizance Of and the relief will be
granted to the utmost extent Of the powers Of
court Of equity. The great distinction between
remedies at law and equity is this court Of law
gives redress or damages tor injuries, and court
Of equity will prevent their occurrence.
Tie one can do nothing more than give COM
pensa ton in damages, while the other will save
the party from resort to the remedy for damages
remedy at law which is inadequate, d court of
equity will take jurisdiction: But in this case
there is no remedy at law; It is a case in which
equity alone can give relief. 1t there be no RENE
cinred; ;-the supreme law Of the land, since mere
majority in Congress may exclude States, as it has
done in this instance; it may blot out States, and
State constitutions, and State governments, or it
may assume and exercise the absolute power to
govern them. If this may be done in the South
ern States, it may just as well be done in other
States, and the will Of a majority in Congress is
the supreme law in all cases whatsoeyer: The peo-
pie of the States which framed the Federal Gov
ernment, surely did not think it possible that they
were creating power that could destroy their ex-
istonce as States and yet this has been done with
four Of tho,original States that created the Gov
ernment
This bill presents several grounds, on other Of
which o court of equity may rightfuIy take juris
diction and give the relief sought.
,Fourth-As this legislation must have proceeded
on the idea that the Southern States are not MEM
bers of the Union let u.s. in the last place. inquire
whether they were in the Union during the rebel
lion have been in ever since, and are 80 now. If
they have continued to be and are 80 now, then
surely these acts have no constitutional basis.
The union OF the states under the Articles Of
Confederation OF 177s as well as under the Consti-
tuition, vas perpetual Union, and could not be
dissolved by act OF Congress or tho attempted
withdrawal of any portion of the people of State.
If Congress cannot dissolve the Union, it cannot
exclude any State from the Union, for il it may
exclude one Stata it may exclude any number of
States, and thus accomplish result forbidden by
the Constitution. The secession ordinances, so
far as their legal effect was concerned, were mere
| utilities. These ordinances we're nullities when
enacted, md they acquired no legal or constltu-
tional force by subsequent events. The assem-
blage which enacted these ordinances had no more
legal or constitutional power than popular meet
ings. They wero not only Illegal, but nsurrection-
ary. The State Constitutions, framed under these
ordinances were utilities also because the Federal
Constitution expressly declares, in imperative Ian
guage, that s'this Constitution shall be the su-
preme law Of the land, anything in the Constltu-
ton or laws of any State to the contrary notwith-
standing"
The secession ordinances being nullities, the
subsequent State constitutions based upon them
we're nu1lities, because the constitutions OF all the
States are required, wo have seon, 20 be always
subordinate to the Federal Constitution. The sub
sequent so-called Legislatures and Governors, and
all other officers, civil and military, acting under
| these insurrectionary proceedings whether at
Montgomery, Richmond, the State capitals or else
not only for the:aboye reasons, but also because
they were all required first to take an oath to sup
port the Constitution Of the United States: In
fact, the whole proceedings commencing with the
secession ordinances; down to the Last act OF the
drama, were part md parce! Of great insurTec-
ton, wholly illegal, and totally forbidden by the
| Constitution. But surely an unsuccessful insur-
rection in any State, although it might subject the
| individuals concerned to punishment, could not
force any State from the Union, confer any such
power on Congress, or effect IN any way the Fed
| eral relations of the State.
Although Congress can suppress lnsurrectlon,
whether Of minority or majority OF the people IN
any State yet it cannot declare war against State
or treat it as foreign Power or coerce or punish
aiState in it's corporate capacity. Such power,
as shown by the Madison Papers, recording the
proceedings Of the Convention which framed the
Federal Constitution, WIS then asked from that
Convention, and expressly refused. The principal
reasons for this refusal we're:
First-Because. unlike the Confederation OF 177S)
the Constitution acted only on individuals, and not
'second~Becauso the power to suppress insur-
rection in any State, and punish the individuals
concerned, was sufficient.
And third-Tho Convention would not grant
power to Congress to declare war against Q State
or punish State or infict any pains, penalties, or
| forfeitures upon it, because. such an authority
would carry with it the power to expel State in
definitely from the Union, or to treat it as a con-
quered foreign province, The Union OF oil the
| States under the Constitution was intended to be
indissoluble, either by State or Federal authority
| We know that the refusal Of the Convention which
framed the Constitution to grant to Congress. the
powerto make. var upon "a. State, or to coeroe
State in it's corporate capacity has been most er-
roneously cited a. justifyng the resistance in the
mics as expressly declared by Congress, did not
march to destroy States, but, under the power
granted by the Constitution, ito execute the laws
Of the Union and suppress lnsurrectlons nor
could the performance of these duties by the Fede-
eral Government be arrested by any State law OF
| ordnance whatsoever.
Indeed, not only did Congress never declare war,
bu, it commenced (before Congress was convened).
under the proclamation OF President Lincoln, to
suppress an nsurrection, and was 80 continued by
were set forth by President Jackson, after the Sc
eession ordinance of South Carolina, in his great
proclamation Of 1884, carried ont by the force bill Of
Tint date and by the army and navy under the COM
mand of SCOTT and Elliott at Charleston. Such
the views expressed BY Daniel Webster in his
ths opinions of Henry Clay, Martin Van Buren,, and
all the Union patriots Of that date; such was the
action Of Congress in suppressing the whiskey in
surrecton Of 1888, and tho Olmstead revolt OF
Governor of Pennsylvania; such the action Of the
Government in supprosslng the South Carolina se-
cession OF 1889; such WIS the action of Congress
and Of President Lincoln throughout the recent
rebellion, md such has been tho uniform opinion
Of this Court. Congress never did declare war
against State, or attempt to punish State, or
!! exercise any such power unoss indeed its recent
action within the last few weeks may, be regarded
as the eXertion Of such power. 1t the people,
whether few or many, majority or minority, by
secession or otherwise, attempted by force TO de-
! stroy the Government or dissolve the Union, it
was case of iIsurrection, to suppress which, by
it's whole military power was the right and duty OF
the Government. Throughout tho rebellion the
Constitution remained in Full foreo in the State 30
did it's then existing State Constitution and State
| laws framed under and in subordination to the
| Federal Constitution:
| These former State constitutions and State laws
remained binding and in full force throuShout the
rebellion, AMI they are in force now, except so far
az changed since the suppression OF the insurrcc-
tion by the people Of tue State acting in suborl-
nation to the Federal Constitution, or by amend
ments to it. An unsuccessful rebellion does not
withdraw State from the Union, deprive the State
of any of it's rights, or repeal tue State constitu-
ton; nor docs it authorize Congress to change
that instrument, to frame, or dictate, in whole
orln part any new constitution; Congress cannot
change terms established by the Federal Consti-
tution) under which State is entitled to represen-
taton in the sonaLo and House Of Representatives;
it cannot prescribe any new conditions, much less
can it say that, unless State shall regulate the
right OF suffrage according to the will OF Congress-
it shall bo forever excluded from the Union. Four
OF tho States over whom this power is attempted
to be exercised, are among the States which framed
the Constitution Others OF these States were ad-
mittcd under ssunalterable" and ''irrevocable"
compact, made ssbind1ng and conclusive" on this
Government, by which they were forever to en-
ioy. as States all tile rights stipulated by those
compacts, and to DO admitted as they were into
States in all respects whatsoever" Is this true,