Knoxville daily chronicle. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1870-1882, 1871-02-15

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE FOUR
TENTH AMENDMENT


| and very important class of cases known
as the Quo Warranto cases. They are, as
is, perhaps, almost universally known, the
cases in which the Government is prose-
cutting men now holding high and ,respon-
sible offices in the State in violation of the
third section. of the Fourteenth Article of
Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Being cases involving the
gravest political questions, and intended
to SETTLE as speedily as practicable, the
rights of the defendants to hold Offices to
which they were elected, and in which
| they were indicted in open and deliberate
violation of a recent important amend
ment Of the organic law of the nation,
/ it was hoped they would be determined at
an early day, not only for the. purpose OF
relieving the defendants from embarrass-
ments caused, in some instances, by their
supposed right to hold their offices, but
also to relieve the Government from the
still greater embarrassment of seeing one
of the most important laws ever incor-
porated intoits charter, defantly annulled.
The cases, important to the General Gov
eminent, and to the defendants themselves
in the respects just stated, were of pecu-
liarly vital interest to the people of Ten
nessee, as involving the tenure-of-ofice of
the very highest officers of the Common
wealth and the personal liberty and prop
erty of very large class of their fellow
citizens. Under these circumstances, it
I, s<,1,
were pending to make known the reasons
which induced it to so dispose of them, as
that subsequent and unforeseen circum
stances defer their final hearing to a day
which may be yet very far off. This ex-
planation, whether satisfactory to our
readers or not, leads us at once to consider
the remedy for the evils upon us. We say
eUiLs, for, without passing upon the guilt
or innocence of the parties accused, it
must be an evil to have such an impor-
tant law practically annulled, while the
tedious processes of the law are being
worked out, when the delay thus gained is
the means of denying to the people of the
State the very protection which it was the
object of the law to grant. The cases passed
upon at Memphis are now standing upon
the docket of the Supreme Court at Wash
ington. They involve, of course, the con-
struction and validity Of the 18th Amend
ment. They are questions, as we said be-
fore, involving the legality of the Court of
last resort in the State, and the rights of
many important subordinate officers to the
positions which they now fill. If it was
deemed of sufficient Importance in order to
exclude these men from holding these Off
ces, to incorporate into the fundamental
law of the land, by the complieate means
prescribed, the amendment referred to, it
seems to us it is not now asking too much
for such action on the part of the Govern
ment and Supreme Court at Washington,
as will speedily secure the protection in
tended to be given. If laws are not passed
to be, enforced, our whole legislation, to
secure the fruits of the triumphs of the
Government in war, is a mockery. If the
18th Amendment is valid and of any vir-
tue, the ways should be provided to secure
its enforcement. The people of Tennes-
see are to-day denied the protection
it was intended to confer. Why? Be-
cause the Supreme Court at Wash
ington says it has no greater
significance that q Congressional statute
Or private contract. They refuse TO move
one inch out of the prescribed routine of
their business, TO extend to the people of
, commonwealth the protection now
denied them. Rather than alter their
court calender so as to change the business
Of day or q week, a practice frequently
resorted to, toadvance causes ofimportance,
hey sit tamely by and see the constitution
under which they administer the law open
y and de6antly annulled.
Wesay this in no spirit Of unkindness
10 that tribunal, or with no desire to preju-
lice the rights of any one of the defend
iants. We say it in explanation of the
situation the action of the courts places |
III parties concerned. The rights of defend
lnts can in no way be prejudiced by a
speedy trial. It is the people for whose |
the I4th Amendment was pro- I
3osed and ratified, and the Government of |
he United States, that are prejudiced by
he delay and it is for them we speak. We |
nope and trust the situation we have de-
Dicted may besoappreciated by the proper
that some action may be taken |
o relieve all parties interested of the very
situation in which they are
low placed, and give to the Amendment
adopted after SO much discussion and con-
est some dignity and vitality.
A SoUTHERNERw writes to Horace Greeley
hat the land-holders of the South expect
o vote their colored employees '.just as
he large manufacturers and employers of
he North do their employees 70 this
sfr. Greeley replies:
There cannot be less than two hundred
7oterS who draw weekly wages from the Tri-
,gJ,7e Offipa. aOd of fhoSo uat ineuiro6 !