The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-04-25
t,sss stssissfian es Contracts,

nr5ans of the rcptidiationlsts al '"'
,aasa,, ~ ,,roye that q retrospective hoi''e'
staad law Il constitutional, and that Congress
,am ,,.as > law mpairing the obligation OF
.am,,c,. although the State Legislatures
cannot One journal has even gone 80 iaf as
r. claim that Congress had forced th's uh'
constitutional provision Of our State organic :
law upon ,ls, and therefore we were bouha
., maintain it. The Supreme Court OF the
United States has answered all these repuoi'
ating arguments. In the case OF Wh''e os.
Hart ct al, from Georgia, that august tfl-
bunaI on Monday squelchcd them all. Inc
Supreme Court of Georgia in deciding the
case had laid dewn the following PROPOSE
tions:
First. That when the Constitution OF la6o
was adopted Georgia was not State IN the
| Union: that she had surrendered her con
nectiou as such, and was conquered terli'
row wholly at the mercy Of the conqueror,
ani that hence the inhibition OF the STATES Dy
rive Constitution of the United States TO pass
any law impairing the Obligation OF cohtracls
| lM no application to her. 81
Second. That her Constitution does not Ill
feet the contract, but only denies Jurso'ction
to her courts to enforce u.
Third. That her Constitution was adopted
| ,mder the dictation and coercion OF Cohsiess.
and is the act of Congress rather Than OF Tue
Stotc md that. though State cannot pass
law imnairinr the validity Of contracts, Con
grnsS can and that for this reason also The
:nhib;ton in the Federal Constitution HIS ho
effect in the case.
These are plain propositions ana genera
onns oppl;rable to all such cases. The Su'
irene Court of the United States brushes
them away as follows:
The subject presented by the first propo-
s;tion bos been considered incidentally seve-
raj times by this court, and It's former deci-
sions, in respect of it, need only be reathrm-
cd, The National Constitution created not
| , conf,deracv of States bait government OF
individuals. 1t assumed that the Government
and the Union which it created, ana t,ie
states which were Incorporated INTO tue
Jfnion. would be indestructibla; ana as 1ar
- human means could accomplish SUCH
work, il intended to make them so. Inc
Government of the nation and OF the State
,acL are alike independent ana absolute III
their respective spheres OF action, Dut Lir
former is as much part OF government Vi
the people of each State, anu rs hnuch entl'
lied to their allegiance and obedience rs tlieif
own local State Governments. the tolstitu-
ton and laws Of the United States maze III
pursuance thereof being, in all cases where
they apply. the supreme law OF the iana. Inc
,lnctrine of secession is the doctrine 0ftreason
and practical secession is practical treason,
seeking to give itself triumph by revolutlon-
,ry violence. The late rebellion was without
any clement of right or sanction of law, and
the duration and magnitude Of the war did
NOT change its character. The States in re-
bcliion were never ont of the Union, and
never absolved from the duties, liabilities,
and restrictions, always incumbent upon
them.
On the second point the court says that
without the remedy the contract may not be
said to exist. The ideas of validity and rem
edy are inscparahle. and are both parts OF the
obligation which is guaranteed by the Con,
-titulion against invasion. Hence the deillil
of The remedy by the State was not valid, be-
cause it annihilated the contract.
The third proposition is said to be clearly
unsound. Congress authorized the state TO
frame a new Constitution, and she elected 10
within the scope of the authority con-
f,rrcd, The result was submitted to Con-
rress rs n voluntary and valid offering, and
was so received and recognized in the sub
seoucnt action of that body. The State is
estopped to assail it upon such an assump-
ton. Upon the same grounds she might
deny the validity of her ratification of the
constitutional amendments. The action Of
Congress upon the subject cannot be in-
ouircd into. The case is clearly one III
which the Judiciary is bound to follow the
action of the political department Of the
Government, and is concluded by it. 1t is
added that If Congress had expressly die
tatcd and expressly approved the proyiso in
question, such dictation and approval would
have been without effect. Congress has no
power to supcrsede the Constitution OF the
United States.