New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-05-07

JUNCTION BILLS.
TELEGRAPH TRIBUNE.
WASHINGTON May 6.-The argument before the
United States Supreme Court, the motion TO dismiss
tbe bills filed on behalf of the States OF Georgia and Mis-
sisspp against Secretary Stanton and Others was to-
day concluded by Attorney-Gen stansbery. He said:
Nav IL please the Court: When concluded my argu-
nen in opening these motions TO dismiss and against the
Injunction did expect again to occupy any further
time of the Court meant i'm that opening to state every
point and TO urge every argument that occurred 10
me and then, having fairly stated the ease to
leave il to be dealt with by the gentlemen on the other
side hut find that upon some OF the points when !
made have much misunderstood by the opposite
counsel that / must have failed to make myself
as clear / intended 10 be, and therefore ieel
necessity to restate those points and II possible
whether right wrong, to make myself understood
We taught that the first fundamental a1es
ton of the Court Following that advice, which is alto
gether conformaoe to my own experience as e
the records in this case came into my hanu was ie
question Of the jurisdiction Of this Court its jurisdiction
tie parties its jurisdiction over the subject matters
over the right up, and over the relief which was M
dction of the Court parties far the defend
ants cOncerned that this being case calling I9r
we must take that we had parties who could
invoke or defend against that original jurisdic-
officers Who are brought here Defendants Mr. Stanton
Gen Grant, and Gen Pope IN one case ana Gen ora ~
bring here in the exercise OF the original JURISDICTION or
this Court. do intend 10 restate my arguments.
ants did see The point and he did not exactly evade but
He 70 eac be arnmen mpon that point as it has
bee1l made, without adding word MY learned irlena'
who closed the ease do not say lie evaded the pOint,
certainly did not notice it, am sure he did not eyade
it. Perhaps may say, that on that LOFTY lever from
which he regarded this he was so far above tat
he did not see IL. IL is the only way can understand
why that point referred 10 at all by him IN his
that point Let me use II simply as an illustration to
show how important a thing In such a case as this ~
the question Of jurisdiction even over the parties Inc
gentlemen tell us that here is state asking the inter.
ference Of tins Court to protect IT from destruction
comes into this Court the final arbIter the one r
buna that give il relief and they object that do nor
admit that the Court has Jurisdiction TO grant such relief
pressing case. Now let suppose that just these
laws passed they have been passed and Thar IN
their execution for You find parties, il had hap
pencd that Mr.. stanton, and Gen Grant and Gen Pope:
and Gen. Ord had every one OF them been chehs OF
them citizens OF Georgia IN me one case or OF Msppi
in the other should have had the same evil the same
have touched H. no matter what might be the anxiety
Of the Court Of the country to reach that question
these defendants had happened 10 be citizens
of the District OF Columbia, could you have
that regard the Constitution AZ so sacred look
that clause of IT that only gives jurisdiction IN ease
state is the defendant and in other
how great the question or how terrible the
injury against which redress sought That illustrates
that the question OF jurisdiction Is everything that the
magnitude of the question does jurisdiction.
but the arrangement of tine parties and the particular
subject matter at stake But now passing from the point
Of the want of urSdctOn because OF the parties leaving
that point the argument made in the opening, |
come next TO a much more important question. The
Jurisdiction If the Court the subject matter. the
Jurisdiction Of the Court 10 recognize the right set mp and
To give the sort of relief that Is required First of all
COurt-ask for something within judicial cognzance
They are states Of this Union, at least, let us
call them so for the purposes of the argument
and Of the case, political corporations called
STATE The c admit nas of on S;r Tn
plaintiff The Constitution cOntemplates that State
State and political corporation may have controversy
with another state or with single individual There y
doubt OF It's competency To The question II, what
than that STATED political corporation. As SUCH itsor
binary functions and powers altogether political IL ~
has not fund.- II has not shares IL has not business
corporations usually have 1t has no shareholders has
But yet admit that while state Is political corpora
s uSd Interest," s" ike 81 na For ns Il las the
faculty OF suit, and, under certain limitations OF being
tracing debts and many other faculties that belong to II
political corporation, which yet are rights and inter
Of evil and, perhaps. generally Of AN ndiy idal
character A STATE can purchase and hold lands;
state is entitled 20 protect It's lands; state may
he creditor may sue JUS debtor ana receive
money by suit SO, too state may be debtor but
here there is difficulty sovereign state has night
TO bring SUIT against It's debtor bnt none OF IT'S creditors
IL. In that respect the necessities Of preseIY.
ing its political organization take from u us liability
10 its actual money obligations. Its great and
primary purpose Is to preserve itself and IT'S political
10 be made bankrupt, and It's public property Ia be sold
would OF course give the rgh To the particular creditor
and him but that individual right would be gained
people Of the state nestlnaby out OF proportion 10 the
sue, and that state may own individual rights.
although essentially 1t is political beng, The
any Of those individual rights does II appear here
the representatives Of political power and Of political
against disturbance First Of all let us settle some clear
ideas about what s judicial power and especially the jul
that the judicial power OF the United states shall he
vested IN one supreme Court and IN such Inferior courts
as the Congress may from time 10 time Oan aud
sh. The power vested In these courts Is not political,
not executive, not legislative but judicial power NeXtt
said q Nfeuu a
all cases IN law ana equity not to all questions IN law
aud equity 10 questions at large whether they arise
under the Constitution under n law OF Congress.
anywhere else, but to cases in law and equity,
and 10 questions that properly arise in those
cases. That is the Constitutional provision. Now,
with these preliminary statements, let as look NJ
to the power OF court Of equity 10 give relief
FAY Of these bills, from end to end the rights set mp are
political nghts-the wrongs TO such rights and TO
such rights alone There not from beginning TO end In
the bills anything Of property, any injury TO property
even the slightest In OF the bills and only in one
equity Jurisdiction as to certain lands not ioi
threatened in the remote future, but the gentleman have
hardly notced tnn p9 s lney admit l .hey ao ,n.
state Of Georgia or the state Of MisssSpp that Is not
petnatc the political rights Of these states and OF their
eiiizcns Let MS look at the rights set up In these
one bill for both. The State of Georgia here
this Court and selects the equity side of the Court with
for equity jurisdiction. What the rights! II is al
legged that it is state that It is political body known
as State that IL has political rights State. What r
Their That II has citizens under IFS care and guardian
ship who also have political rights II then there is
danger that these rights are to be invaded under
tain acts OF Congress the purport OF which Is to dsace
the State TO destroy the State political body and 10
override certain sacred political rights OF its citizens.
was amused at part OF the bill in the case
of Mississippi. The Court will recOllect that these
two laws operate ten States and have only two
states here compliments. We do know that the
other eight states object 10 these laws They are
operation these eight States that they have
with regard to these two. For anything know these
states political bodies and their citizens citizens do
want 10 come into court OF equity 10 stop the execu
ton of these laws but, for aught know they may do
sire TO have them carried into execution. We have
knowledge Of that upon which In court They
are not My learned friends who drew up the Mis-