Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-08-03
UNION AND AMERICAN.
BETWEEN THE Cow
EMINENT AND THE CITIZEN.


Brown VS.. the United States, seems TO
have produced such an impression on the
Washington bar, that it has requested its
Immediate and separate publication. The
Baltimore Sun. says this opinion of the
court shows by repeated contrasts, what
no one here seems to have imagined, that
the United States which started in ad-
vance of other nations in things relating
10 personal rigats and civil liberty, have
fallen behind most of the European
States, and particularly England, in
those respects, in the last thirty years.
European countries have been advancing
to higher civilization, and the facts
cited by the Court of Claims show that
the Judicial system of England, for ex-
ample, is now doing more for human
rights and liberties than our own ever
did; more. for the protection of the
weak ss against the strong, and the CT
tizen ss against 5the Government.
Thus, for instance, in 1852, q suit was
brought against Sir George Gray, Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department,
because be neglected to act upon GER
tain paper, and the plaintiff actually
called the Secretary as a witness, who
came into court and testified, and none of
the Judges of the Common Pleas doubted
"'thst if the Secretary of State had neg
lected his duty and done nothing, he
would have been amenable at law for his
negligence. What would be- thought
here of personsl action brought against
an American Secretary..of State for SINH
lar neglect Again, in 1858, one Dickson
brought an action against the head of the
British War Department for causing, by
means of false charges, bis removal from
the Office of Lieutenant Colonel Of regi-
ment. On the trial the Secretary at War
was examined as witness, and Lord Chief
Justice Cockburn, who presided, put this
question TO him: "Was there any per-
sonsl influence used or sought to be
used upon you to make you depart from
the ordinary course?" Finally, the Lord
Chief Justice thus stated the case: 81
shall tell the jury that if they believe the
Secretary's intention was 10 Cypress ard
injure the plaintiff, he is liable, but that
if he made the recommendation to dismiss
him out of sn honest sense of duty, even
though he may have been mistaken, he is
not liable in law" Imagine a United
States Secretary of War sued for having
illegally dismissed an officer, and brought
into court and asked whether he had
illegally and from improper motives dis
missed the CfficeIl Another case was
brought against the Governor of Gibral-
lar, who sent company of soldiers to
search houae for 8 Spanish General,
supposed to be there secreted. An Elg-
lish merchant lived in an adj oioirg house,
and, coming to the door to see whs. was
the MISTER, was stopped by sentry's
bsyonet and compelled TO remain
within for a few minutes. Although
the merchants house was not
entered, nor was the Governor
present at the search, 'Tor this
constructive assault" end ''this imagin-
airy invasion Of an Englishmsn's castle,"
an English jury fined the Governor fifty
pounds. "All the judges Of the Common
Pleas held that the action would lie, and
that the verdict would stand. Wherefore"
concludes the Court Of Claims, 'the
divine right of Governors to do unlawful
acts may be considered now as il, Great
Britain, entirely at an end" Citing de-
cisions in various English tribunals, the
Court of Claims says sit appears by the
concurrent opinions of all the judges of
the six great courts of Great Britsin-the
Exchequer, the Common Pleas, the
Queens Bench, Chancery, the Privy
Council and the House of Lords-that it
is a fundamental principle that every
British subject who has suffered legal
wrong shall have Legal redress against
some ONE lofty ground to be main
tanned, but the only ground to stand upon
if vested rights are to be secure or laws
are 10 prevail over men," Even if the
wrong is done by an officer by the
authority of the crown, ne is responsible
in law. An equally remarkable contrast
exists in The responsibilities Of the goy>
eminent 10 the citizen. In Eogland, I'm.
der the petitions OF right act of 1860, the
condition OF the crown was treasured as
ID al the remedies Of the common law
for lands occupied, for goods withheld,
for property taken and used, for contracts
broken, and under it be may take defaults
sgsinst the crown, and recover costs and
seek relief either in courts of law or
courts of equity. Ga the othar hand, a
: citizen of the United States has no legal
redress against the government, save in
the Court of Claims, and there the juris-
diction is limited 10 actions on contract !;
the judgment must be rendered in money,
I'D neither interest or costs are recover
tble.
The New Yolk Nation, in which we
ind these facts, winds up with the follow
ing climax, strikingly illustrative of the
intelligence and sagscIty of the Fortie,h
Congress:
"NOr does the contrast stop with Eng
land ard English Jurisprudence. In 1868
tn F,rue,h Congress, in order TO CON-
liica;e the Alabama difficulties in CO.
vert way, being in happy ignorance of
the petitions of right act of 1860, passed
t statute prohibiting an alien from prose
ca.iDg cotton cases. in the Court Of
Ci4ims, unless his own government &C
rded a similar right to American cltl-
ms. So ignorant were our honorable
J. sislators that the avowed object of the
act was to exclude Britifh subjects, and
4 Q belief was, that it would exclude
n. arly al the rest Of the world. The
l., ,tish claifnspfE however we're not