The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-02-13
The Georgia and Mississippi Iniunc.
ton CnsesAOpiinfon or Unfsed

The Georgia and 1Iississippf Tniunc.
ton CnsesAOpinfon OF fhe Unfsed
States Supreme Courr.
/. The opinion of the court 10 the Georgia
q was pronounced BY Judge Nelson,
who used the following significant Ian
'gaage:
The relief asked would call for oM
diferentfrom the one notb before the court"
Every q a understand that this re-
mark is equivalent to a declaration that,
notwithstanding the political nature Of the
reconstruction acts, a case might come up
under them which would render it neces-
sary for the court to pronounce upon their
constitutionality. This rendering Of J Judge
Nelson's language makes It plain why Mr..
Chase said he agreed in the decision but
not in the reasons given for it. We quote
again from the opinion of the court as pro-
nounced by Mr. Justice Nelson: -
"The bill filed by the State of Georgia
prayed for an injunction to restrain The
defendants from executing certain parts
of the acts of Congress, being apprehen-
sive that injury to the State would thereby
result but according to law and prece-
dent, in order to entitle parties to relief,
q case must be properly presented for the
exercise of judicial power, and the case
must refer to the rights Of person and pro-
perty, and not to political questions
merely, which do not belong to the judi
ciary either in law or equity. In view of
the principles, which underlie the Constitu-
ton and the statutes which the court had
endeavored to explain, the question was
whether the court could take cognizance
of the question now before it. The court
was called on to restrain the defendants,
who represented the Executive Depart
ment, from putting into execution certain
acts of Congress-, which, it was claimed,
would overthrow the existing State govern
ment of Georgia and establish a different
one in its stead in other words, destroy
the corporate existence Of the State.
Such is the substance of the bill. 1t
called for the judgment Of the court
on a political question, and not one
involving person and property. No ques-
ton OF person or property, or threatened
danger to them, was presented in the bill
in a form justifying judicial action by the
court. 1t was true the bill set forth po-
litical rights as il danger; and, among
other things, that Georgia owned certain
property-the State capitol, the Execu-
tive mansion, and other real and personal
property-and that by putting those acts
of Congress into execution the State
would be deprived of the possession of
such property. But it was apparent that
this reference was only Incidental, and not
q specific matter Of remedy. The relief
asked would call for a bill different from
the one now before the court. Having,
for the reasons stated, arrived at a con
~clusion, it was unimportant to examine the
question of jurisdiction in connection with
the defendants.
"The court dismissed the bill for want
of Jurisdiction.
"This case, the Judge remarked, also
disposed of the case of the State of Mis-
sissippi against Secretary Stanton, Gene
raj Grant, and Major General Ord, involv-
ing similar questions"
Now, every sentence we have quoted
implies that the case was not one of the
proper kind. emo question of person or
property, or threatened danger to them,
was presented in q form justifying judi
cial action" And so on all the way
through. We regard the opinion as any
thing but a discouraging n to the oppo-
nents of the reconstruction laws.