Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-09-26


tended to affect particular individuals
alone, or 10 deprire them of The
benefit Of he general id,Cs, is unwarranted by
the constitution, and is void" In the same
case, the late Judge Catron holds the fol-
lowing language: The phrase law ofthe
land means a general and public law,
equally binding upon every member of the
community. Our colonial history will
best teach Its meaning. Our ancestors
were taught it by being transported across
the Atlantic for trial; by the Boston port
bill, and other British legislation.
The right to life, liberty, and property OF
every individual must stand or fall by the
same rule or Law that governs every other
member of the body polite or LAND
under similar circumstances; and every
partial or private law which directly pro-
poses TO destroy or effect individual rights,
or does the same thing by afording
remedies leading to similar conses
quences, is unconstitutional and void.
Were this otherwise, odious indi-
viduals or corporate bodies would be
governed by one rule, and the mass Of the
community who made the law, by another.
The idea of people, through their repre-
sentatives, making laws whereby are swept
away the life, liberty and property of one
or few citizens, by which neither the
representatives nor their other constituents
are willing to be bound, is too odious to be
tolerated by any government where free
dom has a name. Such abuses resulted in
the adoption of Magma Charta in England,
securing the subject against odious ex-
ceptions, which is, and for centuries has
been, the foundation of English liberty.
Its infraction was a leading cause why We
separated from that country; and its value
as fundamental rule for protection of the
citizen against legislative usurpation was
the reason of its adoption as part of our
constitution" Yerger, on PIP. 270, 271.
In the case of Wally's heirs es. Nancy
Kennedy, 2 Nerger 554, Catron, Judge, in
delivering the opinion of the court, says
"The act (of 1927 was intended to drive
from the courts of justice a few odious
individuals, who it was supposed had specu-
lated upon the ignorance and necessities
Of the Indian reserves, and fraudulently
obtained their claims for trifing considera-
tions, and were corrupty obtaining evil
dence to establish rights to reserves where
the Indians in fact never had any, to the
preiudice of the purchasers from the State.
If the supposed facts did exist, there was
good cause for public indignation; but
none for the violation of the constitution
by the passage of a law affecting the
rights of a few individuals, but by which
the great body of the people or the legis.
lators themselves, were unwilling to be
bound. The part of the constitution re-
ferred to was intended to secure to weak
and unpopular minorities and individuals
equal rights with the majority, who, from
the nature Of our government, exercise the
legislative power Any other construction
of the constitution, would set up the ma
Ority in the government as many headed
tyrant, with capacity and power to
Cypress the minority at pleasure, by
odious laws not binding on the latter. The
part of the act of 1927 above referred to,
is unconstitutional and void" See 2 Yer
ger on PIP. SOC, 557. ~
In the Bank rs. Cooper" decided in a
special court, which thereby decided itself
out of existence, but which is repeatedly
quoted by the Supreme Court as authority,
Judge Green said: the lal0 of the land is
meant a general and public law, operating
equally on every member of the commu-
nifty. This provision was in
tended to secure the citizen against the
abuse of power by the government. OF
what benefit is it if it impose no restraint
ground to apprehend danger from the Lee
gislature as from any other quarter?
Does it not seem conclusive, then, that this
provision was intended to restrain the Le-
gislature from enacting any law affecting
iniuriously the rights Of any citizen, unless
at the same time the rights of all
others in similar circumstances were
equally affected by it? If the law be
general in its character, affecting all alike,
the minority are safe, because the majority
who make the law are operated on by it
equally with others. Here is the impor-
lance Of the provision, and the great secu~
rity it affords" 2 Yerger, 500.
In the case of Budd VS.. the State Hum
phreys 4S3, Judge Reese in delivering the
opinion of the court, reasons thus: If the
felony affected only all the clerks of all
the merchants of Nashville, or of David
son county, or of Middle Tennessee,
would that, in either case, be the law of
the land2 1t is believed none would 80
contend, aud why not? Simply because
the law Of the laud is a rule alike embrac-
ing, and equally affecting, all persons in
general, or all persons who exist, or may
come into like state and circumstance. A
partial law. on the contrary, embraces only a
portion of those persons who exist in the
same state. and are surrounded by like cir
cumstances. If peculiar felonies, affecting
all the people, or certain of the public officers
Of East Tennessee only, were held to be the
law of the land, it would be difficult TO see
for what object that clause was inserted in
the Bill of Rights. One of its objects has
been stated in various adjudications in our
State, to have been TO protect the feeble and
obnoxious from the injury and injustice of
the strong and powerful; and in general TO
protect minorities from the wrongful action
of maiorities. Because the
law would not treat similarly all who were
in like circumstances, it would therefore be
partial, and Of course not the law of the
land" Hump. on p. 490-49l.
In the case Of Jones as. Perry, 10
Yerger, on p. 70-7l, Judge Green
in delivering the opinion of the
court, says: "The language used is of
general application, and forbids the enact
ment of a partial law, By 1ghich the rights Of
anu lNQttlQUQt StOtt OC UOItQg6Q or tUh6N
aray Nor is there single provision in
our constitution more salutary in its
character, or that demands IN its enforcement
the exercise Of greater vigilance and energy.
The only means by which the Legislature
can be kept within the bounds of the con-
stitution in times of high political excite
ment, is to accustom its members to the
restraints it imposes, and to check their
assumption of an excess of power promptly
whenever the case arises.
Public opinion, too, accustomed to yield to
the authority of judicial DECISIONS and to
sustain the courts, even when they arrest
the operation of legislative act, will ac-
quire wholesome morality, and a firm
tone, by which the courts will feel GUS
tanned and encouraged in the discharge of
their duty, should the time eUer come 17aen the
sanctuary Of justice 1yll Be the last hope Of the
oppressed"
In addition to these quoted cases see also
Officer rs. Young, 5 Yerger 800; Mayor and
Aldermen of Alexander as. Dearmon, 2
Sneed l04.
In the several cases above quoted, the
Legislature may be said to have assumed
the power to deprive, in some instances in
dividuals, and in others classes Of the peo-
pie. of one or more Of their rights or privi-
iaoee NV sr,acial or martial laws In the