Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-10

of, aud was also granted school sections in
every township and lands for the seat of
government. That, however, was n mar
row view of the question. The mere set-
Element of matters involving land OF monev
was not the reason which induced the fra.
mers of the Constitution to give this con-
original jurisdiction in all cases where q
State should be party. That jurisdiction
was granted to secure peace and HARMONY
peace abroad, harmony between the Ststas
at home-not as to mere questions of al
to tract of land or sum of money Lrt ao
to all the greatquestions which involve +bo
constltutlonalitV of laws of Congress. the
construction OF the Constitution, or the in
depreciation of treaties. If the States did
not create this tribunal as the ultimate mr.
bitter OF such questions, it was created in
vain ana the States were left without RENE
| dy, and there was never q more powerful
argument in favor of secession and revoIn-
ton. great argument against secession
had always been that the Constitution had
created an umpire to interpret all the re.
served rights of the States, and pronounce
judgment for OF against them. When the
people of the several States framed and rat
flied the Constitution, they reserved certain
privileges and rights to themselves, and
granted certain power to the general govern
ment Among the rights reserved to each
State was the right to come into this court
and ask its decision as the ultimate arbiter
in all cases involving the construction of
the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the
United States. This doctrine was sane
toned by the Wheeling bridge case, al
though the Attorney General had referred
to that case as showing that the jurisdic
diction was sustained because of the pro-
prietary interests of Pennsylvania In GER
tain canals and railroads. 1t was true that
allegation was made, but it was only be-
cause of technical point; but that decision
sustained the doctrine that when State
came into this court as suitor she had
the rights as an individual would have to
remedial process.
The case of the controversy between the
States of Rhode Island and Massachusetts
were perfectly decisive on the question of
jurisdiction. That case did not involve the
title to an acre of land or a dollar of mon
ey; nor did the Constitution say q word
about boundary in giving jurisdiction over
cases between States. That was case of
disputed sovereignty and jurisdiction over
five thousand people /; and the court enter
tanned jurisdiction because of the parties
and pronounced defnitive judgment. The
decision in Woolsey vs. Dodge, 1Sth How
ard } which ought to be bound up with the
Constitution, reviewed the whole subject
and showed conclusively that this court
was the ultimate arbiter in all cases arising
under the United States Constitution, laws
or treaties.
In the case of corporations and fran
chises, court of equity inter fered to pro-
tect the franchise itself, to prevent the par
ticipation of persons who under the charter
were not entitled to participate in the 60
vernment of the corporation. Did not this
power apply to public as we'll as private
corporations? It was employed in the case
of Osborn against great public corpora
| ton, the Bank of the United States, and has
been applied in the case of city corpora
tions. county corporations, and other pub
lie corporations, admitted in the decisions
to be exercising portion of political pow
er, to be legislating to tax the citizen or to
take his property from him by public con-
demnatiOn under the right of eminent do
main. This power was exercised to protect
the incOrporeal right of the franchise
| That question arose in the celebrated Dart
mouth College case, where the original
charter vested the administrative power of
| the corporation in certain officers, and an
act of the Legislature of New Hampshire
undertook to change that organization, and
| to take the exercise of that exclusive power
under the charter from those who were en-
titled to exercise it by its provisions, and to
vest it in part in other functionaries. Mr..
Webster, in that case, made an unanswera
bic argument in favor of the power to pro
tect the franchise, though the persons
claiming the exercise of the power had no
money interest in the matter and the court
in its decision in 4th Wheaton, sustained
| his doctrine, and in the decision in that
case the court held that the right to admin
| lister the franchise of q corporation was
| " founded on the same basis as the right of
voting in public elections" and it as.said
to be So q sacred right, and will be protect
ed by the courts - The main ground which
ushered in the American Revolution was
| the taking away of our charters but even
in the most arbitrary times they scarcely
ventured to take them away by legislative
act, but they dragged Massachusetts, and
other colonies to contest the validity OF
| their charters, on the question of forfeiture
or nonforfeiture, before the judicial tribu-
nails of England, where it was regarded as
a judicial question. The right to vote in
private corporation was q sacred right to be
protected by the judicial tribunals and
the right to vote in city, county, or other
public corporation exercising vast political
powers was sacred right which the courts
would protect and yet was he to be told
that the same right of an American citizen,
sacred by the Constitutions right without
Wnlcn liberty is SHADOW ana Selt-gOVern-
ment pageant, right secured by the first
article of the Constitution-was to be frit-
tered away SO as not to be capable of pro
lection by judicial interference The right
of suffrage, who should vote for members
of Congress and Presidential electors, was
one of the great disputed and difficult ques-
tions presented to the consideration of the
trainers of the Constitution, and after much
deliberation and great diversity of opinion,
not being able to agree upon any one uni
form rule applicable to every State, they
finally adopted the principle that each
State should decide for itself who should
have the right to vote for members of the
popular branch of the State Legislature,
and that whoever were thus permitted by
the State constitutions to vote for members
of the popular branch of the State legisla-
ture should be the persons who should be
entrusted with the power of voting for mem
bers of Congress and electors Of President,
and, in fact, with the carrying on and adj
ministering of this Government. These
are the men who carry on the Government
through every department. Even the gu