The Daily clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1866-1888, 1867-04-04


sweep them from the statute book; and
that the State and people would waive
or forfeit their right to invoke this ju-
risdiction BY accepting the proposed
terms of Congress. This is very
grave objection indeed, and it requires
that every citizen should be able to
answer It satisfactorily to himself be
fore acting.
Asian myself of opinion that the
Federal Courts and the Supreme Court
in the last resort do have juris-
diction over the subject, and can and
will ultimately give relief, it devolyes
upon me to show that that jurisdiction
is not waived or forfeited by pursuing
the course Of action which l am advo-
eating. THIS presents the real ques-
ton on which have arisen the differ
ences Of opinion which now divide the
people and prevent that harmony OF
action which is so much to be desired.
Before discussing it, however, it Is
proper that l should state the grounds
Of the opinion which have expressed,
that the courts have jurisdiction, in as
much as there seems to be much diff
ference of opinion on the question.
think then that there never could
have arisen any doubt on the subject,
were it not for certain language
employed by the late Chief Justice
fancy in delivering the opinion Of the
supreme Court in the case Of Luther
vs.. Borden, reported in the It'll volume
of Howard's Supreme Court Reports,
to understand the import of which it
is necessary 70 look a little into the
/ history Of this question in that court
Ten years then before the case Of
/ Luther VS.. Borden the identical
question was discussed in that
court in the case ofthe State of Rhode
+ Island vs.. The State Of Massachusetts,
reported in the 18th volume Of Peter
S. c. Reports, at page CO.. The State
of Rhode Island sued the State of
I Massachusetts in the Supreme Court
/ to establish a certain boundary line
which was in controversy between
those two States and to obtain a de
cree to confirm and establish the
rights ofsovereignty claimed by Rhode
Island A motion was made to dis
miss the case for want of jurisdiction,
but the Supreme Court, after argu-
ment, oyerruIed tie motion and sustained
tie jurisdiction. This being a case
involving the questions Of political
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the
disputed territory, it is worthy of re
mark that Chief Justice fancy deliv-
cred a dissenting opinion in which he
did-not doubt the power of the court
to hear and determine a controversy
between States or individuals where
the suit was brought to try a right OF
property or any other right which is
properly the subject of judicial cogni-
zance, and depends on the true boun-
Diary line-and denying its power only
in cases where sovereignty and iuris-
diction, which are political, and not
matters of property, were the sole
subjects of litigation. He based his
opinion entirely upon the fact th9t
Rhode Island did not in the suit claim
any title to or property in the suit
which was within the disputed boun-
dairy
In Luther VS.. Borden, a case was
presented where the right claimed was
properly the subject of judicial cognj.
zance 1t was in brief, this: The
plaintiff brought in the Circuit Court
of the United States, for the District
ofRhode Island, an action Of trespass
for breaking into his house. The
defendant justified by asserting that ne
did the act complained of in dis
charge Of a duty which de
volved on him by authority emanating
from the established government OF
Rhode Island. To avoid this defence
the plaintiff proposed to show
by proof of certain documentary
evidence and by witnesses, that a
Convention of the people of Rhode
Island had been held which had not
been legally authorized to be held by
the established government and polit-
zeal power known as the old charter
! government, and that this Convention
under the lead of Mr. Dorr had made
a new Constitution for the State,
which had been suJmiHed to the peoDle
(but as will he seen, still without legal
authority to do Sc and adopted by
them, and that thereby lie charter
government, under the author
ity of which the defendant
had acted, had been superseded
and abolished. This evidence having been
excluded IN the Circuit Court and an appeal
taken to the Supreme Court presented the
only question to be decided viz: Cbetber a
Hetc constitution and government can Be es-
tabljsbod in dRy mode GrcCpt through the action
Of the people ia a convention called and author
lied for the purpose by the political govern
Iaent already established and existing in the
State
Mr. Webster, whose great argument on
this aud cognate subjects l shall have occa.
sion TO refer to again, made the point IN this
way Il say first that the matters offered 70
b. prored by the plaintiff ia the courts below are
not of judicial cOgnizance and proof of them
was properly rejected and in maintaining
his point made tins amongst other remarks
which l have not the space to quote what
then is the attempt: To put down one
government and to put another up, by facts
and proceedings in regard to election out OF
doors, unauthorized by any law whatever"
Mr.. Webster further argued that the eS-
tablished government of Rhode Island had
under the 4th section of the fourth article OF
the Constitution of the United States aD-
piled to the General Government TO aid in
protecting the State against domestic vio-
lence, threatened by the DOrr government.
and that the President fthe United States
on this application, acting under an act OF
Congress passed in the year 1895, which del
egated TO him the authority when such an
plication was made To cali out the militia Tor