Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-04-09
VOL. XIV.


behests, all paying It HOMAGE the least as
feeling its care, and the greatest as not be-
ing exempt from It's power.'' If the chief
executive officer of a State is liable to, be
controlled by the courts of the State in the
discharge of ministerial duties,s for mucif
ticer of the United States liable to be con-
trolled by this Court, under, the provisions
of the Federal Constitution. (See Hilhard
on Injunction, 374;-and- authorities cited.l
In the case. OF Greene Y Mamtord, r. +
the court said in regard to officers: III
they are departing from the power which
the law has vested in them, if they are as
suming to themselves power over proper
ty which the law does not give them. this
Court no longer considers them as acting
under their commission, but treats them as
Individuals By the same principle the
President, when acting I'M opposi itioF to the
Federal Constitution, may be treated as an
individual. flesjJ -. .s5i- f7i03
.ThtrdLDoes the bill present case proper
for the interposition of this Court? The
Constitution gives TO the Federal Jqdiciary
equity jurisdictforl,S and 1t is familiar
pTiaciple that wherever jurisdiction isgiE-
en- over particular subject or a particular
branch of Jurisprudence, it is ample for all
purposes connected with the subject or the
branch OF Jurisprudence. Therefore the
Jurisdiction of this Court is ample to take
c6gnizance to the full extent, over all sub
JeCGS OI equity We udN6 lbSl
but to present such a case as equity would
take eognizance of, and the relief will be
granted to the utmost extent of the powers
of court of equity The great distinction
betweenremediesat at law and equity is this:
a. court of law gives redress or damages for
injuries and a Court of equity will prevent
their occurrence. The one can do nothing
more than give compensation in damages,
while the other will save the party from a
resort to the remedy for damages, by pre-
venting the mischief. And even If there
be remedy at law which is inadequate, a.
court of equity will take jurisdictions. But
in this case there is no remedy at law. 1t
is-a case in which equity alone can give re-
lief. If there be no remedy then the Fed
eral Constitution is not, as declared, the
supreme law of the land, since mere ma
jority 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 doneNin the Southern
States, it may just asweH be done in other
States, and thelwill of a majority in Con-
gress is the supreme law In all cases what
soeVer. The people of the States which
framed the Federal Government surely did
not think it possible that they were cre-
ating power. that could destroy their ex-
istence as States; and yet this has been
created the Government.
This bill presents several grounds, on
either of which court of equity may
rightfnlly take jurisdiction and-give the
relief sought. . FFFE A2.-A {, II
In the first place, the acts under considera-
ton violate 6he Constitution OF the United
States inaso many particulars that tis not
necessary to attempt to enumerate them.
It does more; it annuls and abrogatps the
State Governments and State Constitutions,
and substitutes a mere military power.
The Constitution is. of course, the chief OBJ
jrct of protection with all Courts. When
it is about to be violated, the Federal ju.
diciaryrwiH interpose for its protection.
Thus in the case of Osborn ". The Bank of
the United States % Wheaton, 1881, the
Federal Court took Jurisdiction for the sole
purpose of protecting a constitutional right.
A,State law violated the Constitution, and
State officer was about to execute the
law, but was restrained by injunction by
the Federal Courts. which would not have
had Jurisdiction over the subject matter
or the officer but from the fact that the
execution of the law would have violated
the Constitution. The question, then, is
settled, that wherever the Constitution is
about to be violated and a proper case is
presented, the Federal judiciary will pro-
teet it; and wherever this Court has orig
inal Jurisdiction it will certainly act upon
the same principle. (StOry's Equity, "a,
As, no; Hilliard on Injunctions, 3S9; State
of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Howl
ard Reports; Martin V. Hunter i Wheaton ;
Carroll VI. Stafford, 8 How, al; Cohen v.
Georgia, 6 Wheaton.)
Acourt oflequity will always protect a
| franchise by restraining threatened abuse.
| q Story's Equity, 766. Hilliard on Injunc-
tionI, BID Surely the Constitution and
| the rights of a State, and of its people un-
der it, stand upon much higher ground and
| have stronger claim to protection than a
| mere franchise; to protect the one and not
the other would be to protect the lesser and
not the greater. This protection Is always
given i'm advance of the threatened Injury.
We ask the application of this principle in
| the present case. The bill makes case in
which the Constitution must be violated
not only to the great prejudice OF State,
but of individuals. Will the Court prevent
this state of things, or will it leave the COM
/ plainant without redress, and thus admit
that the Constitution furnishes no means
forsits own protection? Peculiarly compen-
sation never can be made, even If there
| were any persons against whom redress
could be sought in court of law. And
the grievances resulting may never be re-
dressed, for these bills leave it discretionary
with Congress when the State Government
ordered to be established, shall be recog'
nized. 80 @-- @ se,--<7--'NS-.
In the next place, the bill presents the
case of a breach of agreement made with
! the State of Georgia under the compact d
1902 and of Virginia under the ordinance
of. 1887. as well as with the State of Missis.
sippi on its admission into the Union.-
| These compacts, which are made .sunalter,
able'' and .'irrevocable,' are public dOcu.
ments, and we merely refer to them
Courts of equity will always interpose, moi
only to enforce agreements or compacts
) when that can be done on a proper case
made, but also to prevent their violation
Casey v. Hames, 10 Ala, 776.)
} Again, the bill presents patent case oil
irreparable mischief, and in such cases, il
is needless to say to this Court, equity will
} always interpose to prevent this mischief
) On this point the bill states all the facts
} and from that statement it is manifest the
mischief must ensue. Mississippi was adj
mitted into the Union in 1917, under the
!, compact made with Georgia. Her Consti
tuition was then declared to be republican
by Congress, though in reality it was fa
less so according to the present STANDARD
: than her present Constitution. Under tina
GOvernmentshe continued until 1888, wheI
r the Constitution was modified, without the
consent of Congress, and without produc
2 ing any change in her relations with TIN
!. Federal Government. In 1861 a portion o
s her people undertook to break up these re
lations by an attempt to secede. The Stat
was not annihilateG or removed from he
plaCe III Lllo OnIoH ny ILLS dtbeupG dG 30
cession, and the ordinance of secession wa
e merely nullity, as has always been main
tained by all the Departments OF the Fed
! eral Government. When the attempt a
e secession proved abortive, the people o
1 the State, through their representatives
? assembled in Convention, and remodeleC
t their Constitution by erasing from it al
e those provisions which had been legal.
: interpOlated upon it to suit the Confederat
Government. They did not form neE
Constitution; they did not act as a ney
e State without Constitution; they did no
: recognize the attempt at secession as chang
D | ing in any wav their former State Govern