The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-11-21
The GRIFFIN HABEAs CORPUS CASE.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENT FOR THE
RESPONDENT
ABLE SPEECH OF IlR. NELSON.

Yesterday morning Mr. Neeson submit
ted the closing argument in behalf of the
respondent. 1t WAS obvious, he said, to the
court as well as to the whole community
that this was case Of great novelty, inter-
est, and importance-perhaps no case of
more importance could at this time be
brought before the court. The s0licitude of
the community must be great indeed when
all its civil institutions, all its great de-
partments, are assailed and jeopardized,
and their acts denounced as null and void.
The doctrines avoTed in this case, and to
which judicial sanction is sought, not only
assail the judicial acts of Judge Shefey.
but of all the official acts Of ninety-nine-
hundredths Of the corps of officers in the
State Of Virginia. 1t was matter, there
fore, of vital Importance that these dec
trines should be reprobated and denounced.
Further, this was not case Of interest to
Virginia alone, but was of equal import
auce to every State in the Union. The
great States Of Indiana, New York, and
Pennsylvania, are equally exposed TO these
assaults, and are equally involved in the
anarchy which the affirmation Of these doc
trines must bring upon the country.
The counsel on the other side (Mr. Bundy) J
had remarked that old lawyers could not
in these days of progress be expected to ap-
preciate and understand these doctrines.
1t was for Young America in its hey-dey,
without the learning and experience Of age,
to understand what ought to be done in
such case-how this new gospel must be
applied. He supposed that he (Mr. Nee
sony must apply these remarks to himself
but he could not refrain from expressing the
| hope that we had not reached the age when
learning and experience are to be reproached
and their counsels utterly discarded.
There was another assertion of the coun
| sci that he did not understand: that after
| four years of deadly conflict for the supre
macy of the Constitution, when it termi-
mated by the surrender of the Confederate
| armies, nothing whatever vas achieved but
the dsbanding Of those armies. The
speaker had imagined very different re-
suit achieved, and had acted upon that pre-
sumption. He had imagined that the su-
preme authority Of the Constitution and
laws Of the United States over the whole OF
this broad land had been ree5tablished, and
were now operative in full vigor and purity.
Mr.. Bundy thinks such is not the case.
Mr.. Neeson was aware that AppomattOx
was called the Hastings of this fair south
ern country, but he did not believe that
the victory of Grant was the triumph OF
william the Conqueror, and that Norman
laws, Norman customs, Norman despotism,
and horde of Norman officials, necessa-
rily followed that triumph, and that we
were to expect nothing but William the
Conqueror's mercy. The Supreme Court
had declared that upon the defeat Of the
southern armies the Constitution became
immediately the supreme laU in the rebel
lous States, and that the guarantees Of the
Constitution we're once more sacred all over
the country.
Mr.. Neeson would not follow the argu-
meut Of the counsel for the petitioner in lis
devious path, but would narrow the field OF
discussion to Legitimate inquiry. His
Honor would remember that nearly all the
facts admit Of no discussion, the only es-
| sential point of difference being that men,
toned by General JOB nson-yiz., the INSULT
cheney OF the evidence ailuoed to prove
that Judge ShefIey had ever taken an oath
to support the Constitution of the United
States.
The Court: The petitioner, rs l under
stand, relies solely on the legal presump-
ton based upon the Journals OF the House
to prove that point.
Mr.. Neeson, continued: All other facts
are indubitaLle. He would now, therefore
consider the legal and constitutional ques-
tons resulting from those facts. The petit
oI. -, In
tutional amendment incapacitates Judge
Shelley, and therefore his Judicial acts
since its ratification were null and void
He did not propose TO contest the validity
of that article, but would proceed upon the
concession that the fourteenth amendment
was on the 2Sth Of July officially promul-
gated as having been duly ratified. When
it was ratified does not appear; what was
the final act giving it validity does not ap-
pear-Te only know that it was promul-
gated. The question arises, When did this
law 90 into operation He then inquired
into the general rule as to the time when a
constitutional provision goes into operation
1t was an historical fact that the Constitu-
ton of the United States did not 90 into
operation for months after its ratification
by the requisite number of States. MOI
until the Government was fully organized
under it, which was on the 4th Of March
| 1889. Further, it was prospective, not re-
Prospective, in its provisions.
Mr.. Neeson then announced his first pro.
position, which vas that the operation Of
the third section of the fourteenth amend
ment, according to the accepted rules Of
construction, is prospective, and not retro
specsive. The amendment at the date OF
its authorized PRONUNCIATION July 2S, 1868, }
vacated no Office and incapacitated no in
cumbent already inducted in office, while il
may disable and exclude all persons of the
class prescribed in the third section from
| future official installation" This rule he
claimed was in accordance with well settled
and universally admitted principles of con-
struction. He read from l Tucker, p. 3
| to sustain the position that statutes are
prima tdcie prospective in their operation
and that retrospective statutes, being obi
Gus, it should not be presumed without
good reason that Legislatures intended
to make them such. Tie Supreme
Court has on several occasions announced
and yindicated this rule. Murray U.s.
Gibson, Is Howard, 42l McEwen Us. Deun,
q Howard, 242.) These decisions clearly
demonstrated that the third section of the
amendment was not binding on persons
already inducted in office; TO which class
Judge Sheifey unquestiOnably belonged,
Furthermore, the very language Of the
amendment denoted that its operation was
prospective" no person ShaH"-the fu-
ture tense is used. Different language is
used in the first section, which says that all
persons born in the United States are citi-
zens (present tense). Nor does it say that
present inculnbents shall cease to hold, OF