The Sweetwater enterprise. (Sweetwater, Tenn.) 1869-187?, 1872-04-25

ted to pass any law impairing the obi
CATION Of contracts in application to
her.
Second-That her Constitution does
not affect the contract but only denies
jurisdiction to her courts to enforce it.
Third-That her Constitution was
adopted under the direction of Congress
and is the act Ct Congress rather than Of
the State and that though a State can
not pass n law impairing the validity Of
contracts, Congress can, and for this
reason alone, the inhibition III the fed
cal Constitution has no effect in the
case.
This court reverses the judgment aid
in substance say: The subject presented
by the first proposition has been con
sidered incidentally several times by this
Court, and its former decisions in re-
spect OF it need only Il re-afirmed. The
national Constitution created, not a con-
federacy Of States, but II Government OF
individuals. 1t assumed that the Gov
eminent, and the Union which it crea-
ted, and the States which were incorpo-
rated into the union, would be indie
structable and as far as human meanes
could accomplish such a work, it inten-
ded to make them 80. The Govern
ments of the nation and OF the States
are each alike Independent and absolute
in their respective spheres Of action, but
tive former is rs much a part Of n gov
eminent of the people Of each State and
Us much entitled to their allegiance and
obedience, as their own local State Gov
ernments-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
doctrine of secession is the doctrine OF
treason and practical secession is practi-
cal treason seekingt to give itself triumph
by revolutionary violence. The late re-
bellion was without any element of right
or sanction of law, and the duration and
magnitude Of the war aid not change its
character. The States in rebellion were
never out of the Union and never were
absolved from the duties, liabilities and
restrictions always incumbent upon
them.
On the second point it is said that
without remedy the contract may not be
said to exist. The ideas OF validity and
remedy are inseperable and IRE both
parts Of the obligation which is guaran-
teed by the Constitution against inva-
sion. Hence, that denial of the remedy
by the State, was not valid because it
annihilated the contract.
The third OF the propositions is said
to be clearly erroneous. Congress au-
thorized the State to frame q new Con-
stitution and she elected to proceed with
in the scope Of the authority conferred.
The result was submitted to Congress as
a voluntary and valid offering and was
so received and recognized in the subse.
quent action by that body. The State
is estopped to a:sail it upon such an as
sumption. Upon the same grounds she
might deny the validity of her ratlfca.
ton Of the constitutional amendment
The action of Congress upon the sub.
ject cannot be inquired into. The case
is clearly one in which the judicial il
bound to follow the act OF the politica
department Of the government and ii
concluded by it. 1t is added that i
Congress had dictated and expressly ap
/, proved the point inquestion, such dicta
ton would have been without effect
Congress has no power to supplant tn,
constitution of the United States.
Mr.. Justice Sawyer delivered the opin
ion, as also in the case from Georgia
8 No. AZ Osborne VS. -, OF al. In tina
: case there was q warranty that the slaV
=. was sound and that lie was q slave 70
Y life. The Court say that such q warran
ty does not extend to the exercise OF th
n sovereign power Of the State by whicI
the slave was freed, and that the thir
d teenth amendment to the Constitution
t does not effect the case. The contrac
, being valid when made, was enforcibl
in all Courts, and no subsequent legis
%lation, either by Congress 5oE .Constitu
tional provision can operate to rende
: it invalid The Chief Justice dissente
t and said that hos would givd hi roaaon
g in all opihi0n'to be filed heieafter.