The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-03-28

tible of judicial determination and she :
must have direct, real, and substan-
tial interest in the subject to entitle
her to assume the attitude of plantlif'
She cannot by petition or bill, obtain 4
restraining order against the putting IN
force an unconstitutional act Of Con
gress on the general ground that the
act of putting in force viii affect the
rights and interests Of individual cii-
zens. In the first place the individuals
themselves have the right to seek re
dress when the act touches directly
their rights of person or property and
not before. So far as the State in he.
political capacity is concerned, the
question as to her IS altogether alb
stract, in the language Of the courts
and she cannot assume the attitude OF
plaintiff on such question in that
court
The cases in which States have .
brought suits in the Supreme Court /
viii serve to Illustrate the destruction.
They have gone there to settle ques
tons of boundary with other States, as !
individual proprietors of land may do /
between each other in ordinary courts. /
The State of Pennsylvania brought
suit there to prevent an association of
persons from building a bridge over
the Ohio river, which obstructed nav
igation. and caused a direct injury
to certain public works owned by the
State Of Pennsylvania. In this case
the Supreme Court plainly Intimated
that if the State had sued upon the
| general ground that the rights OF her
citizens might be injured, she could
! not have maintained the suit; but the
suit was founded on direct injury to
her own proprietary rights.
No example IS to be found of an at
tempt on the part of any State to pre-
vent the operation of an act Of Con
gross, on the general ground that it
inyades her political Sovereignty, or
affects her citizens iniuriously.
In regard to those measures which
exclude her suitors, and which declare
/ the Government to be illegal, and
which propose to create q new one, in
what manner IS the State to make q
case for judicial actionI and what
power has the Court over the sub
iect? Our right to have Senators in
| Congress has been refused, but can
those lost seats be recovered by o
suit in court? The Senate having the
power to judge Of the election and
qualification Gifts members, has rejec-
ted ours but no one supposes that the
Supreme Court can review their action
and reverse it. 1t is a political not q
judicial question. The Constitution
has given the decision of it to politi-
cal not to a judicial body. Yet we
regard this as a fragrant violation of
the Constitution. The refusal by
| Congress to recognize the existing
government as the established gov
eminent of the State can not be made
the foundation of a suit by this State,
and the decision of this question is one
which the Supreme Court has said be
! longs to the political department OF
the government, and once decided by
that department. cannot be questioned
or reviewed by any court
The court has no power to afford
any redress as to these measures. The
case of Western Virginia thoroughly
illustrates this view. There never
was a more fragrant violation Of the
Constitution. Virginia was dismem
bered without her consent; Western
Virginia erected a separate govern
ment: her Senators were admitted
and the political department of The
government rec ognized the local gov
eminent. The Supreme Court wa.
appealed to, but what was the result
Western Virginia remains q separat,
= State. Again, it is stated, that recent
{ ly, on demaud by the Governor 0
Old Virginia on the Governor Of New
York for the delivery Of fugitiv
from justice, the latter refused to com
ply on the ground that Virginia wa
not a legal State government TIL
question was taken before the Suprcm
> Court, and that tribunal refused t.
entertain it for the reason that tn
; political status of q State was matte
over which it had no cognizance.