Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-05-10

decisions by sinister influences.
The solution of each question aboy
e stated, depends on that Of another que
: ton, and it perhaps on that Of anoth'
! vet. 1.-THE State has enacted, by a Law
that nothing except gold and silver sha
be receivedin payment Of taxes: :" 9Th
: law of the State, taxing the property
the Bank, is in violation OF a provisiO
in its charter, by which its property
exempt from such taxation" Il. Wa
born In Tennessee, the slave OF G., VIII
sold him to F., in that State, slaves bein
property there" The facts being agreed
or found by a jury, each case remain
unsettled. To the defences set up, thes
replies are made: THE Treasury-wal
rant in question was issued under a lay
of the State, which provided that
should be receivable in payment Of an.
tax that was q contract, made by tn
state with any person who should re
celye or might hold it the law prohibit
ing its receipt is in violation of the obi
CATION of that contract the COnsti
tuition Of the United States, il
this respect the supreme law, provide
that no such law shall be enacted an
therefore the law is void THE Con
gresq Of the United States had no power
under the Constitution, TO charter 8 Ma
tional Bank. the charter is therefor
null. and the State did not agree tina
she would not tax the property Of th,
bank -" C., in 1859, removed from
Tennessee to the Territory Of Kansas
carrying f. with him the Legislator,
Of the Territory by law abolished
slavery and by this exercise Of pOpu
lar sovereignty F. became free; sftel
which q. forcibIy removed him to Ten.
nesses and there sold him to F. or
| G.. removed TO the Territory Of Oregon
where, by the act Of Congress creating
the Territory, the existence of slavery
aud involuntary servitude was prohib-
tied; whereby f. became free after
which, etc.
In the first two cases, the general ques-
tons would now be reached -" Is the
State law contrary to the Constitution OF
tine United States, and void, because it
impairs the obligation of a contract ?"
4" Had Congress the power, under the
| Constitution, to charter a bank Of the
United States -
In the third case, the rejoinder would
be" The Legislature Of the Territory
had no power, under the Constitution OF
the United States, TO abolish slavery in
Kansas Or" Congress had no power
under the Constitution TO prohibit slavery
in Oregon =" and thus the final question
would be presented, whether a Legisla-
ture of a Territory, or Congress, could
prohibit OF annul slavery in such a Ter
ritOry.
II the Courts were compelled to stop
short when they reached these and kim
bred questions, and were impotent to de-
eide them, Constitutional guarantees OF
individual rights, and the whole bill OF
rights would be valueless, and the Con-
stitution be e-masculated; and q State
could only enforce its legal and constitu.
tional rights, as for example, to a partic-
ular boundary, by war. When a law
unc0nstitutionslly affects individual
rights, it has no ssnctity and when it
comes in question, the same stern rules
eff logic and reason apply as in determin-
ing the validity of a contract. The rules
Of construction are the same for consti-
tutions As for charters OF Incorporation.
Many laws enacted by States are not
the fruits Of any exercise Of their sOper-
eighty, but simple contracts, in making
which, a. in taking stock in a Bank, the
State subjects itself to the rules that gov
ern individuals.
It is because the decision Of the Su-
preme Court in q given ease settles emily
the rights Of the parties to that case,
that it is plausibly argued that each such
decision is the law only Of that particu-
lar case and that the other Depart
ments or officers Of the Government are
under no obligation to consider any con
s|titutional question as 40 settled by such
decision, as that they are no longer at
liberty to cODstrue the Constitution for
themselves, that is, to do again and
again what the Court has decided to be
unconstitutional.
But this is 3 grave error and q wilful
invasion Of private rights. Every such
decision is an authority for all inferior
Courts, which are bound to consider the
question as settled by such decision and
every citizen whose rights would be in
hlnged by the renewal Of such uncon-
stitutlonsl action, has the right to enjoy
the benefit Of the decision, without being
put to the trouble and expense OF a suit
TO obtain q like decision for himself.
Once decided to be unconstitutional, a
law must be deemed void, not only as
between the parties 10 that suit, but as
between all parties, in all cases and for
all purposes. II it is avoided only as to
those parties, aud as to such others as
may afterwards obtain like decision,
this singular state Of case would happen,
that as 10 part Of the community it
would be the law, and as to part, nolaw
and this would be anarchy. The same
reasoning that would confine the effect
Of the decision Of a constitutional oues-
ton to the immediate parties to the suit,
would apply to the decision Of any other
question and nothing would ever be
settled.
hit Is for the interest Of the Republic
that litigation should cease, it is Far more
so that debate and strife should cease AZ
70 the construction Of particular clauses
Of the Constitution because these are Of
wider operation and more bitter. and
endsnger the very life Of the Republic.
When a State adopts the language Of a
British statute, it adopts it with the
meaning and construction given to il by
the British Courts. So it has always
been held and Of this the statutes of
Frauds and Of Limitations are striking
Instances. When the construction Of 4
statute is legitimstely before a Court for
consideration and decision, the construe-
ton given by the Court becomes part Of
the statute, If the Court be Of last resort.
So the construction Of a clause Of the
Constitution by the Supreme Court be-
comes part Of the clause and ali men
are deemed Afterwards, in taking action
under It, to read it as the Supreme Court
did.
Ha General declares martial law in a
5tote, and undertakes to suspend the
privilege Of the writ Of Habeas Corpus
md if one out Of a hundred men impris-
med by him in consequences, brings his
.ction, and obtains the decision Of the
JouTt Of last resort, that the imprison-
nent was illegal, because q General had