New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-23
WASHINGTON.

NldAMS-OOllOu
Supreme Court DecisiOns-NOte Given
for the Price cf n Slave-Absence of
Cabinet Officers.
WASHINGTON, D. c., April 22.-IQ the
Court of Claims to-day came up cotton
claims involving nearly $l,000,000 against
the government. which had been withheld
upon the Drake amendment, which the Su-
preme Court decided unconstitutional. The
cases decided were chiefly from Savannah
and include E. L. Gees cases. Other cases
will follow. brakes amendment, which
has been decided unconstitutional, invali-
dated Presidential pardOns.
The following decisions were made in the
Supreme Court to-day:
No. ll-White VS.. Hart ct al. Error to
the Supreme Court of Georgia. This was
an action on note given tor the price of a
slave. The defense pleaded, by the new
constitution of the State, the court was pro-
hibited from taking any jurisdiction of a
case involving the question Of the validity
of such contract. The judgment Of the
court was for the defendant, and announced
the following propositions:
First-That when the constitution of 1868
was adopted, Georgia was not State in
the Union; that she had surrendered her
connection as such, and was a conquered
territory wholly at the mercy os the con-
oueror. and that hence the iDhabitation of
the States by the constitution OF the United
States to pass any law impairing the obliga-
ton Of contracts had no application to her.
Second-That her constitution does not
affect the contract, but only denies jurisdlc-
ton to her courts to enforce.
Third-That her constitution was adopted
under the dictation ard coercion of Con-
gress, and is the act of Congress rather than
of the State; and that though State cab
not pass a law impairing the validity of its
contracts, Congress can, and for this reason
also the inhibition in the federal consti-
tuition has no effect in the case. This
court reverses this judgment. and in sub
stance says the subject presented by the
| first proposition has been considered Incl
dentally several times by this court, and its
| former decisions in respect to it need only
| be affirmed
The national constitution created not a
confederacy OF States, but government OF
| individuals. 1t assumed that the govern
| ment and the Union which it created and
| the States which were incorporated into the
| Union would be indestructible, and as far
| as human means could accomplish such a
| work, it intended to make them so. The
| government of the nation and Of the States
| are each alike independent and absolute in
| their respective spheres Of action, but the
| former is as much 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 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 Il the
| doctrine of treason, and practical secession
| is practical treason, seeking to give itself
| triumph by revolutionary violence. The
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 were never out o1
| the Union, and never absolved from the
duties, liabilities and restrictions always in
cum bent upon them. Upon the second
| point it is said that without the remedy the
contract may not be said to exist; the ideas
| of validity and remedy are inseparable, ano
are both parts of the obligation, which il
guaranteed by the.cOnstitution against in
vasion; hence that denial Of the remedy BY
the State was not valid, because it ami
hilated the contract.
The third of the propositions is said to be
clearly unsound. Congress authorized the
State to frame new constitution, and sht
authority conferred. The result was sub
| mitted to Congress as voluntary and valid
offering, aAd was SO received and reeog
nized in the subsequent action by that
body. The State is estopped to assail il
upon such an assumption. Upon the same
grounds she might deny the validity OF her
ratification Of the constitutional amend
ments.
The action of Congress upon the subject
can not be inquired into. The case is clearly
one in which the judicial is bound 60 1oii1" %
| the action of the political department OF tne
| government, and is concluded by IL. IL
| added that if Congress had expressly aictat-
| ed and expressly approved the provision IN
| question, such dictation and approval would
| have been without effect. Congress mas no
| power to supersede the constitution VI the
Mr, Justice Swayne delivered the opinion
as also in the case from Arkansas, No. AZ
| Osborn VS.. Nicholson ct al. In that cas-
there was a warranty that the slave wa
sonnd. and that he was slave for life. 'Th
conrt saws that such a warranty does no
eYtend to the exercise of the sovereign
nower of the State by which the slave wa
emaucipated, and that the thirteenth amend
meut of the constitution does not Affect tn
question, the contract being valid whe
made, was enforcible in all courts, and tina
subsequent legislation, either by statute 0
constitutional provision, could not render
invalid.
The Chief Justice dissented, and state
ss .-.