Bristol news. [volume] (Bristol, Va. & Tenn.) 1867-189?, 1871-02-10
of Kentucky in establishing the Bank,

of Kentucky in establishing the Bank,
was Unconstitutional.
In the same year. in the case of the
proprietors of the Charles River Bridge
Company VS.. Warren Bridge Compa-
ny, it was held that a State law may
be retrospective in its character, and
may direct vested rights, and yet not
violate the Constitution of the United
States.
In 1899, in the Bank of Augusta vs..
Earle, it was held that althougha a cor
poratiOn must live, and have its being
in the State creating tit by no means
follows that its residence there creates
an insuperable objection to its cOntrac-
ting elsewhere, but'it must show that
the law of its creation empowered it to
cOntract-and whenever a State indi-
Gates, that contracts made within its
confines-by virtue of its comfy, are
Cpugnant to its pOlicy-the presump-
ton in favor of their validity must
| cease.
In 1871, i'm the case of Groves VS..
| Slaughter, which related To an action
on Il prOmisory note given for slave
brought into Mississippi, i'll contrayen-
ton of Il Constitutional enactment,
prohibiting the introduction of the
same-it was held that the prohibition
| in the Constitution did not invalidate
| the contract, but that Il law of the Legis-
! lature was requisite to carry the prOhi-
/ btiOn into effect.
In 1912, in Prigg vs.. the State of
Pennsylvania, it is observed in relation
to the Constitution of the United
States -"Perhaps the safest interpreta-
ton after all, it will be TO look to the
nature and objects of the particular
powers, duties and rights, with all the
| light and aid of cotemporary history,
and to give to the words of each, such
! operation and force, consistent with
| their legitimate meaning. us to fairly
secure and obtain the ends proposed. j"
In 1915. the case of PollaIds' Lease
VS.. Hagan being before the court, quo
| tatiOn is made from the ascot Martin
| V. Waddell, as follows: when the
Revolution took place the people be-
| came themselves SON ereign, etc, etc"
In 1917, i'll Jones VS.. NaIisant, it was
held that the law of Congress of Feb
ruary II. 1898, providing a penalty for
| harbOring fugitive slaves, was not re-
pugnant to the Constitution of the
United States.
In 1917 in Fox, VS.. State of Ohio,
| that the prohibitions contained in the
Amendments to the Constitution ut
| the United States, are RESTRICT MS upOn
| the Federal Government, not upon the
| authority of the State Governments.
In 1917, i'll Haring vs.. Clarke, UIat
STATE laws prohibiting the sale of IA
dent spirits, are not inconsistent with
the Constitution of the United States.
In lS4S, in West Bridge Company VS..
Dix and others, that all property is
held by tenure fIom the State, ana all
contracts are made subject to the right
OF eminent domain
In 1919, the case of Luther W.. Mar
tin, arising from DORIS rebellion in
Rhode Island, brought into question
the right of the people of IA State to
change their form government, with
out prior legislative action regulatin.
the manner uf - duing-and cliciic:i
from the court the opinion-that To-
Congress pertains The right of judging
whether the form of government of Il
State dur n u 'bclliOn therein, has Il
right to declare martial law.
In lSJl, i'll the case of the State OF
Pennsylvania vs.. Wheeling Bridge
Company, Judge fancy 'lissented from
the decision of the court, in u very lu-
cid opinion.
In The same year, in Moore vs.. the
People of Illinois, it was held that
State has the right to repel from its
limits AN unacccpIionable population.
In lSS2, in the case of kainc, who
Was arrested under the treaty with
great Britain, writ of hd6edS corpus
having been asked, it was refused by
Il majority of the court-Judges fancy
Nelson and Daniel, dissenting.
In 1913, in case af Marshall VS.. Bal
timUre and Ohio Railroad company, it
was he'd that the Constitutional right
Il citizen of one State has To sue citizens
of another, cannot he taken away by
the creation of the latter into copOra-
ton.
In 1856, in the case of nred Scott VS..
Sanford, Judge Taney assentt dwith the
majority of the court-that a free negro
of African race, whose ancestors were
brought to this country and sold as
slavCs, is not Il citizen within the mean
ing of the Constitution of the United
States, such not being in 1857, regard
ed as members of the community
which constituted Il State, and not be-
ing numbered among its people or citi-
ZenS; the only clauses in the COnStitu-
ton which relates to them, treating
them as persons whom it was morally
lawful to deal in as property, nor can
any State since the adoption of the
Constitution make citizens of the Uni
ted States of any foreigners, or other
persons and not being citizens they
cannot sue or be sued in that charac-
ter in any Federal court.
y State may put them upon foot
ing with its own citizens, as to all
rights enjoyed within its own borders
but such will not constitute them
citizens of the United States nor does
change in public opinion in relation
to the African, since the adoption OF
the Constitution, change its meaning
The clause in the Constitution au-
thorizing Congress to make all need
ful rules and regulations for the gov
ernment of the territories and other
property of the United States applied
only to territory which was in the
chartered limits of the original States.
but does not apply to territory since
acquired by treaty or conquest; nor
can the United States acquire territory
to be as a colony, to be governed at its
will and pleasure-it may acquire such
and govern it, but not to degree ex-
ceeding what il may exercise, in re-
spect To their rights and property owe,
citizens of the United States for their
common and equal benefit, l,y their
agent and trustee, the United States
Government. Nor can Congress pro-
hibit citizens of one State taking up
their abode in a territory, when it per-
mits citizens of another to do sO-nOr
give privileges to one which it refuses
to another.
Every citizen has a right to take
with him any property.
Slaves were recognized as property
by the constitutiOn-nor can Congress
exercise any more authority over them
than over any other property.
An act of Congress prohibiting a
citizen from taking slaves into such |
territory is unconstitutional, and the |
removal thi:her of the slaves gives no
freedom.