Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1870-03-20

most prominent members of the Con-
ventiOn, which we take the liberty of
publishing, though not written for
publication, as it is in reference to the
same section of the new constitution
that Mr.. Maynard attacks:
MEMPHIS, March Is.
1Hy Dear Sir: Article XI, section l,
fairly construed, simply means that
all ordinances now in use and force
are continued in use and force, except
such as are inconsistent with this con-
stitutiOn.
Now there is nothing in this consti-
tuition which is inconsistent with the
ordinances of 1865 repeating the seces-
sion ordinance and the military
league, and repudiating "new ISSUE"
If there is no such inconsistency, then
these ordinances of 1865 remain in
force.
But even if this constitution ope-
rates as a repeal of these ordinances,
it would not have the effect to set up
secession, or to revive the military
league, or to affirm the "neW issues"
So far as secession and military league
are concerned, of course it is idle to
talk about setting up them. If they
were void they cannot be set up or
ratified, and suppose no member of
Gen. Grants Government will admit
that they were ever valid. See the
Texas case in 7th Wallace.
So far as it affects the new issue, /
will say that the validity of that debt
against the State and against the bank
is the same without the repudiatiDg
ordinance of 1865 as with it. l mean
to say, that if the issue was void and
Illegal, it would be equally so without
the ordinance declaring it so; and the
repeal of that ordinance by this cOnsti-
tuition would not revive or validate
the obligations or create any obliga-
ton. But if the debt was valid and
binding upon the bank and upon the
State, the Reputation ordinance itself
is not binding and of no force. No sub
SeQuent act Of the State, either in Con-
veutiOn or by Legislature, can repudi-
ate d valid debt. A Convention can
do 10 more on that subject than a
Legislature. 9 Yerger, 400, State VS..
Union Bank.
write in great haste, in the midst
of numerous engagements.
Your friend, VIM. II. STEPHENS.
Mr.. Stephens, in his letter, sustains
! his position by reference to the cele-
brated case Of The Union Bank VS..
! The State of Tennessee. 8 Yerger, 400.
Judge Turiey, in delivering the Opin-
/ ion of the Supreme Court in that case,
says:
g 1t has not been contended that
convention of the sovereign power Of
the State could, by an amendment OF
| the constitution, do that by which by
| the Constitution of the United States
the Legislature is prohibited from
| doing; neither, in our opinion, could
| it have been successfully cOntended
| for; for a contract, once made, is OBJ
| ligatory upon the parties thereto in
morals and in law, until it has been
| performed according to its spirit and
meaning. We repUdiate the idea that
a convention of a State has more
power 10 violate contracts than the
/ Legislature"
The other case referred to by Mr..
/ Stephens is Texas VS.. White and
/ others, Z Wallace, 20. The facts in
that case necessary to be mentioned
are that after the secession of Texas
/ the Legislature of that State passed
an act "To provide arms and ammU-
milton and for the manufacture of arms
and ordnance for the military defenses
| Of the State. By this act "a military
/ bcardU was created to carry out the
| purpose indicated in the title. An
other act was passed, ''To provide
| funds for military purposes, - in which
/ the military board was directed 'tO
! dispose of any bonds and coupons
which may be in the treasury on any
! account, and use such funds or
their proceeds for the defense of the
| State" Under these acts the military
/ board agreed to sell White & Chiles
one hundred and thirty-five United
States bonds, then in the Treasury Of
| the State, and seventy-siX others de-
| posted in England, in payment for
which White & ChileS were to deliver
to the board large quantity Of cotton
cards and medicines. After the war
| the State of Texas filed bill to pre-
vent the payment of those bonds by
| the United States, and to reach them
| in the hands of the then holders. The
bill alleged among other things that
| the bonds were seized by 3 comblna-
( tiOn of persons in armed hostility TO
! the United States, and sold by an or
gsnizati0n styled the Military Board
! to White & Chiles for the purpose OF
| aiding the overthrow of the Federal
| Government.
Chief Justice Chase, in delivering
the opinion Of the Supreme Court,
says:
'aIhe ordinance of secession adopted
by the Convention and ratified by a
| majOTity Of the citizens of Texas, and
I =, ,f I LOT
to give effect to that ordinance, were
absolutely null. They were utterly
without operation in law.
The Legislature OF Texas, after the
act of secession, constituted one OF the
departments Of a State government
established in hostily to the COnstitu-
ton of the United States. 1t cannot
be regarded, therefore, in the courts OF
the United States as a lawful Leglsla-
ture, or its acts as lawful acts. "
It is not necessary to attempt any eX-
act definitions, within which the acts
of such a State government must be
treated as valid or invalid. Acts in
furtherance or support of rebellion
against the United States, or Intended
to defeat the Just rights of citizens and
other acts OF like nature, must, in
! general, be regarded as invalid and
void.
Hence, the Supreme Court of the
United States held that the transfer
TO White and Chiles of the bonds be-
longing to the State of Texas was null
and void. Therefore, the conclusion
is that the points made by Mr.. May
nard are not well taken.
=.
ArAAF 0pI EANc