Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1872-05-02

The Homestead Law.

The Homestead Law.
For sone lime our people have been
.auxiously booking for decision upon
the retrospective feature Of ths Home
stead law. Whatever the decision Of the
Supreme Court Of Appeals Of Virgin ia
may be. the Supreme Oosrs Of the Uni
ted Suites has virtually "setsled" the
question. twill certainly be a relief to
our people to knov that the United States
Court main sains the doctrine Of the in
visibility Of contrac is. If this princi-
pie we're firmly established in tue minds
Of our people and the absurd longings
for repudiation dismissed. confidence
would be restored, money would be per-
mitled to circulate, business would re-
vive, and We would again be prosper
Gus people. In the case Of White Us.
Hart, tal., from Georgia. the Supreme
Court of Georgia in deciding The case
had laid down the following propositions;
First. That when the Constitution Of
1868 was adopted Georgia was not a
State 10 the Urion; that she had surren-
dered her connection as such, and was o
conquered territory wholly at the mercy
of the Co qncror. and that hence the iu-
hibition OF the State by the Constitution
of the United to pass any law impaiiing
the oblie alton of contracts had no appE-
cation to her.
Second. That her Constitution does
not affect the contract, but only denies
Jurisdiction to her courts to euforce it.
TIL ird. That her Constitution was
adopted under the dictation and coercion
of Congress, and is the act of C~ngress
rather than of the State, and that, though
State cannot pass a law impairing the
validity of contracts, Congress can, and
that for this reason also the inhibition in
the Federal Constitution has no affect in
the case.
These are plain propositions and gener
al ones applicable to all such cases. The
Supreme Court of the United States
brushes them away as follows:
The subject presented by the first prop
osition has been considered incidenta lily
several times BY this court, and its FORM
er decisions, 10 respect Of it, need only
BE- reafirmcd The National Consttu-
ton created not coufederacy of States
but government Of individuals. 1t as
sumed that the Government and the I'm
ion which it created. and the States
which were incor porate1 into the Union.
would be indestructible and as far as
human means could accomplish such a
work, it intended to make them Sc. The
Government of he nation and of the
State each are alike ihdepeDden, and alb
sulute in their respective spheres of &C
ton, but the former is as 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 Constitution and laws
or tie United Safes made 10 pursuance
thereof being, in all cases where they ap-
ply, the supreme law of the land. The
doctrine Of secession is ,he doctrine OF
treason and practical secession is practi-
cal treason, seeking to give itself triumph
by revolutionary violence. TIE late rebel
lion was without any element or right or
sanction of law. and the duration and
magnitude of the war did not change It's
| character. The States in rebellion were
never out of the Uni,n. and never absolv-
ed from the duties. liabilities, and restrie-
items, always incumbent upon them.
| On the second point She court says
that without the remedy the contract may
not be said to exist. The ideas of va
lidity and remedy are inseperable, and
both parts Of the Obligation which Is
guaranteed by the Constitution against
invasion. Hence the denial of the rem
edy by the State was not valid, because 1t
annh.laied the contract.
The third proposition Is said to be
clearly unsound. Congress authorized
the State to frame new Constitution,
and she elected to proceed within the
scope of au hority conferred. The result
was submitted to Congress as voluntary
and valid Offering. and was SO received
and recognized in the subsequent action
Of that body. The State is es'opped to
a-sail 1t upon such an assumption. Up
on the same grounds she might deny the
validity of her ratification of the eonst'
tutional amendm ents. The action Of
Congress upon the subject cannot be To-
ouirei into. The case is clearly one in
which the judiciary is bound to follow the
political department OF the Government t,
and is concluded by it. It is added that
If Congress had expressly dictated and
expressly approved the proviso in ques
ton, such dictation and approval woulc
have been without effect. Congress ha'
no power to supersede the Constitution o.
the United States