The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1872-05-11
The supreme Court on Secession.

clSlOn
White agt. llarl ct. al, error to the
Supreme Court of Georgia. This was
| an action on Il note given for the price
of Il slave. The defence pleaded that
by the new constitution of the State the
court was prohibited from taking any
Jurisdiction of Il case Involving the va
lidity of such Il contract The iudg-
ment of the court was for the defendant,
, and it announced the following propo-
SitiOnS:
l. That when the constitution of SOS
Was adopted Georgia was not Il state in
the Union that she had surrendered
her connection us such, and was 4 cOu-
quered territory wholly ut the mercy
of the conQucror, and that, hence, the
inhibition of the States by the Consti-
tuition of the United States to pass any
law impairing the obligation OF con-
tracts had no application to her.
>. That her constitution does not uf
feet the contract, but only denies iuris-
diction to her courts to enforce it.
:. That her constitution was adopted
| under the dictation and coercion of
Congress, and is the act of Congress
| rather than of the state, and that,
though Il State cannot pass Il law inn
pairing the validity of contracts, Con-
gress can, and that, for this reason also,
the Inhibition of the Federal COnStitu-
tiOn has no effect in the case, this Court
reverse this Judgment and in substance
say:
The subject presented by the first
! proposition has been considered Incl
| dcntally several times by this court,
aud it.; former decisions, in respect of
it, need only be reatfirmcd. The Ma
tional Constitution created not u con-
t.,,lD
| individuals. 1t assumed that the Gov
ernment and the Union which il crca-
| ted, and tho States which were incor-
porated into the Union, would be
indestructable; and, as far as human
| means could accomplish such work,
| it intended to make them so. The
Government of the nation and of the
| state each are alike independent and
| absolute in their respective spheres of
action, but the former is rs much a part
! of government of the people of each
| State, and as much entitled to their
allegiance and obedience as their own
local State governments, the cOnstitu-
| ton 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 scccs-
sion is the doctrine Of treason and pr:,c-
ing to give itself triumph by rrvolu-
tionary violence. Tho late rebellion
| was without any element of right or
sanction of law, and the duration and
magnitude of the war did not change
its character. The States in rebellion
We're never otit of the Onion, and never
absolVcd from the duties, liabilities
and restrictions always incumbent upon
them. On the second point, il is said
that without the remedy the contract
may NOT he said to exist. Ths ideas of
validity and remedy are inScpur,blr,
and are both parts of obligation which
is guaranteed by the constitution
against invasion. Hence the denial of
the remedy by the State was not valid
because it anniliIatcd the contract.
The third of the propositions is said to
be clearly unsoHnI. Congress author
iZcs the State to frame IL new constitu-
tian, and she elected to proceed within
the scope of the authority conferred.
The result was submitted to Congress-
as Il voluntary and valid offering, and
was so received and recognized in The
subsequent action of that body. The
State is cStoprch to assail it Upon such
an assumption. Upon the same grounds
she might deny the validity OF her rat
iticatiOn of the Constitutional amend
mcntS. The action of Congress upon
the subject cannot bn inquired into.
The case is clearly one in which the
judiciary is bound to follow the action
of the poiitic;, department Of tn" Gov
Crnlncnt, and is concluded by it. II is
added that if Congress had expressly
approved the prONi~O in question, such
dictation and APPROVAL would haN" been
without effect. Congress has no power
to Supcrccdc Tire Constitution of the
United States.
Mr.. Justice SWaynr drlivcrcd the
opinion, aS also in the c;,Sr from Ar
kansas, no. II, Osborn against Nirhol-
son ct al. IN that cas-" thrr" was u
warranty that tn" slave was S0und
and that ne was Il slave for life. Thc
says that such It warranty docs not OK
tend to tn" exercise Of the sovereign
power of the state, by which the slave
was cmancipatcd, and that the thir-
tccnth amendment Of tho constitution
does not affect the question; the con
tract, being valid when made, Waa en-
fOrcibtc in ali the courts, and that sub
scuucnt legislation, cithcrbN :-tatut" or
constitutional provisions, could not
render it invalid. The Chief Justice
diSscnted and stated that he would