Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-08-25

tributes of sovereignty not specifically !
yielded. Now, no amendment which |
would alter that relation between the
States AID the general government could |
become 9 part Of the constitution unless
ratified by all of the States. Nevertheless |
the fourteenth section of the act of |
Congress approved 9Ist of May, 1870, |
provides "that whenever any person shall
hold Office, except as memberof Congress
or Of some stste Legislature, contrary to
the provisions of the third section of the
fourteenth article of amendment to
the constitution of the United States, it
shall be the duty of the District Attorney
of the United States for the district in
which such person shall hold office as
aforesaid, to proceed against such per-
son by writ of quo warranto, re-
turnable to the Circuit or Dis
trict Court of the United States in
such district and to prosecute the same
to the removal of such person from Of
flee, +" etc. This is not merely to entrench
on the sovereignty of the States, but 1t is
to extinguish the States entirely. For
of course If Congress can dictate who
may vote in State election, and at the
same time dictate who may hold Office,
there is nothing Of the State left. Say,
for example, there are eight Congressman
to be elected from Tennessee, and only
eight men in the State entitled to vote and
hold Office. 1t is no answer to say that
this supposition is practically an absurdi-
ty. AbsurditY is an argument directed
against probability only; whereas what
we are entitled to is constitutional
guaranty against the possibility of such a
thing, or else we have no Constitution.
As applicable to the Courts of the
States, this proposition is well settled.
The act of Congress of 1854, known as
the revenue act, undertook to tax all law
suits by requiring revenue stamp on all
original writs: but the Courts of every
State declared the act unconstitutional, for
the reason that the State Courts are part
of the inherent sovereignty reserved to
the States and inaliena6le. Still less,
then, could the general government adj
dress a writ of quo Oor~dnto to the
Judge of State Court.
5. The fifteenth section of the same
act of Congress (31st of May, 1870 has
no application to the case of any of the
recently elected judges, because even if
they were constitutionally amenable to
it, the machinery of the law is powerless
to carry it into effect. That section pro-
vides ''that any person who shall here
after knowingly accept or hold any Office
under the United States or any State, to
which he is ineligible under the third sec
ton of the XIV. article of amendment of
the Constitution of the United States, or
who shall attempt to hold or exercise the
duties of any such Office, shall be deemed
guilty of q misdemeanor against the
United States, and upon conviction there
of before the Circuit or District Court of
the United States, shall be imprisoned not
more than one year, or fined not exceed
ing one thousand dollars, or both, at the
discretion of the court" Now here Is a
statute creating aSmisdemeanor, which by
the words of the statute is incomplete un-
less the party committing the act has
previously been found guilty of named
felony. He must have been previ-
ously found guilty, because, not
being on trial for the prerequisite
felony, no evidence in pals of such
felony can be received; the court
trying the accused for the misdemeanor
can look to no other evidence of the felony
but certified copy of the conviction in
court of competent Jurisdiction. 1t is
not believed that any of the recently
elected Judges have been convicted of
the offences named in the third section of
the Fourteenth Amendment, and hence
forth such conviction is rendered impos-
sible by reason of the general amnesty
proclamation.
These propositions are suggested more
particularly in reference to the case of
Hon. James D. Porter of Henry, who
was a member of the Legislature of 1859,
sfterward Confederate officer and now
elected Judge of the twelfth judicial
circuit. In many points his is a repre-
sentative case. 1t is difficult to believe
In the purity of the motive which could
induce any one willingly to raise the ques-
ton of disabilities against such men. 1t
will be impossible for me TO believe that
such interference is warranted under the
Constitution until it shall be so decided by
the court of last resort. Whenever such
decision shall be rendered it will, in my
opinion, be written on the last page of the
history of the States, and the word fniS
should be written under it.
81 JOHN G. THOMPSON.