The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1872-04-23
THE NEGRO BOND CASES..
OF THE BONDS SUSTAINED
BIZ TIE SUPREME COURT.
A Test Case from Georgfa-An Elaborate
Argument and; Unequivocal Dect-
sfons.
WASHINGTON. April %.

The following decisions were made in the
Supreme Court to-day:
No. II. White VS.. Hart ct al, In error to
the Supreme Court OF Georgia. This was an
action on q note given Tor the price of q
slave. The defence pleaded that by the new
constitution of the Slate the court was pro-
hiblted from taking any jurisdiction of q case
q contract. The judgment OF the court was
for the defendant, and announced the follow
ing propositions First, that when the consti-
tuition of 1868 was adopted Georgia was not q
State in the Union; that she had surrendered
her connection as such, and was q conquered
territory wholly al the mercy of the con.
uuerer, and that hence the inhibition of the
states, by the Constitution of the United
States, to pass any Law impairing the obllga.
Second, that the constitution does not
affect the contract, but only denies juris-
dictlon to her courts TO enforce 1t.
Third, that her constitution was adopt.
ed under the d.ctatlon and coercion
of Congress, and Is the act Of Congress rather
than of the State, aud that, though q State
cannot pess a law imparlng the validity OF con.
tracts, Congress can; and that, for this reason,
also, the Inhibition IL the Federal Constitu-
ton has no effect in the case. The Supreme
Court reverse this judgment, and In substance
say The subject presented BIZ the first propo.
sitilon has been consldesed incidentally several
times by this court, and its former decision In
respect OF 1t need only be reafirmed. The
National Constitution created not a Confede-
racy of States, but q government OF individu-
ais. 1t assumed that The government and the
Union which created II, and the States
which were Incorporated into the Union,
would be indestruclibe, and, as far as human
means could accomplish such q work, 1t In
tended to make them 10. The government Of
The nation and of thu State are, each alike, in
dependent and absolute in their respective
spheres of action; but the former Is as much q
part of a government. of the people of each
State, and az much emitted 10 their allegiance
aud obedience as theIrpwn local State govern.
m%ents-the constitution and laws of the United
States, made in pursuance thereof, being In all
cases, where they apply, the supreme law OF the
land. The lale rebellion was without any ele.
ment of right or sanction Of law, and the du.
ration and magnitude OF the war did not
change Its character. The States In rebellion
solved from the duties, liabilities and restrlc-
tons always Incumbent upon them. On the
second point, 1t is said that, without the RENE
DIV, the contract may not be said to exist. The
ideas of validity and remedy are lnseparable,
and are both parts OF the obligation which Is
guaranteed by the Constitution against lnva-
sion. Hence, that denial OF the remedy by
the State was not valid, because 1t annihi!ated
the contract. The third OF the propositions ls
said to be clearly unsound. Congress authorized
The State 10 frame 8 new constitution, and she
elected to proceed within The scope OF The au.
thority conferred. The result was submitted
10 Congress, a voluntary and valid ofeiing,
and was 30 recelved and recognized In the sub
sequent action by that body. The State Is
estopped from assaillng 1t upon such an as
sumption. Upon the lame grounds she might
DENY the validity Of her ratification OF the
constitutional amendments. The action OF
Congress upon the subject canuot be Inquired
into. The case Is clearly one In which the
judicial Is bound to follow the action OF the
political department of the government, and
is concluded by 1t. It is added that, 1t Con-
gress had expressly dictated and expressly ap-
proved the proviso In question, such dlctation
and approval would have been Without effect.
Congress has no power to supersede the Con.
s~liiution of the United States.
Mr.. Justice Swayne delivered the opinion,
as also in the case from Arkansas, No. AZ. o.
born vs. Nicholson, ct oil. In that case there
was q warranty that The slave was sound. and
that he was q slave for life. The court says
that such a warranty does not extend the ex-
ercise of the sovereign power OF the Slate oy
which the slave was emauclpated, and ina
the thirteenth amendment to the constitution
does not (touch p the question. The contraet
being valid when made was enforcl0le IN all
courts, and subsequent legislation, either by
statute or constitutional provision, could not
render IL invalid. -.
The Chief Justice dissented, and said that
he would give his grounds In an opinion 10 be
filed hereafter.