The Daily state journal. [volume] (Alexandria, Va.) 1868-1874, 1873-05-07
WEDNESDAY EvEN'G, MAY 7. 1873.
The Sovereignty of the states Main
fninpU.

The Sovereignty OF the states Nnain-
tanned.
The decision of the Supreme Court of
the United States, just rendered in the case
of the " Butchers Benevolent Association
of New Orleans, uasus the Crescent City
Live Stock Landing and Slaughter-house
Company" is one of the most important |
in its bearing upon the relations of the
United States, and of the several states to
each other, that has ever been rendered by
that high judicial tribunal. The decision
was given by Mr.. Justice Miller, and has |
evidently been most carefully prepared,
and written out with eminent clearness and
perspicuity, as an exhaustive judicial
opinion. Nothing can be more precise
and exact in legal phraseology, nor more
thoroughly convincing in the way of legal
argument. 1t IS, par excellence, the opin-
ion of the Supreme Court of the United
States, and will stand as monument of
judicial wisdom and forecast through the
many-coming decades of our history. 1t
settles the hue-and-cry of the Democratic
party about the crushed and bruised con-
dition of the Republic, and the purpose Of
the Republican party to gather up all the
executive and legislative powers of the
states within the grasp of our overshad-
owing and omnivorous national sovereignty.
Our city contemporaries have no longer
any occasion to whimper over the lost lib
critics of our people, or the played-out
sovereignty of the states, as the
result of Radical ascendency in the
United States. We rejoice that they can
breathe freer, and that the pure air of con-
stitutional liberty is still preserved for
them land us) within the territorial limits
and boundaries of our great state, Virginia
The shade of Patrick Henry need no
longer be
'Do,med for certain term, to walk the night,
To make our eyes, like stars, start from their
spheres,
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quilts upon the fretful porcupine."
No, this ''eternal blazon" has come to an
end, thanks to Republican Supreme
Court of the United States, that has laid
this vision of ghost forever, we hope!
But to our mutton. The case, the title
of which we have given,. was brought
to test the constitutional validity
of q law of the State of Louisiana
comforting the erclatsiUe right upon the de
PENDANTS in error to erect and maintain
slaughter-houses, stock-yards, and landings
for live stock, in or near New Orleans fol
the supply of the market of that city. The
enforcement of this law was resisted on the
part of the plaintiffs in error, on the GROUND
that it contravened the provisions of tn
fifteenth amendment to the constitution O
the United States, which provides thai
'sno state shall make or enforce any Law
which shall abridge the privileges or i'm
munities of citizens of the United States
This case, as thus stated, involves
the whole question whether tn
thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments to the constitution, in any o
their provisions, deprived the Stat
of Louisiana of the right to exercise an.
such exclusive authority over its citizens a
affecting their civil rights and immunities
The decision goes at length into the his
tory Of these amendments, while it point
out very clearly the difference between th
rights and immunities belonging to citizen
of the United States, and those belonging t
the citizens of the states. These distinctions
are well taken, and most clearly ant
distinctly marked out and defined
and the position of the court is, tina
in those rights and immunities belong
ing to the citizen of the state, as sue
must rest for their security and protectio
where they have heretofore rested. snl
they are not embraced With
the limitations of the amendments named
The sole purpose of these amendment
was, as the court in SO many words says
to declare to the several states that tn
y-amancpated slaves should, with
the several states in which they reside,
have the same civil rights in respect to lift
liberty, and property, as the whites, /
more nor no less. This was their SO
pervading purpose, and their only intel
and meaning, within their several provi
ions; leaving all the other provisions al
amendments Of the constitution, not co
ficting with such purpose, precisely
they stood before these amendments we
adopted.
The court says:
II would be the yainest show of learning
attempt to prove by citations of authori
that up to the adoption of the recent amen
ments no claim or pretense was set up tn
these rights depended on the Federal Cover
ment for their existence or protection beyond I
very Jew express limitations which I
Federal Constitution imposed upon the Stat
such, for instance, as the prohibition again
ec post Jdct0 laws, bills of attainder and la
impairing the obligation of contracts B
with the exception of these and a few OH
restrictions, the entire domain of the Or
iieges and immunites of citizens of the Stat
as above defined, lay within the constitution
and legislative power of the State, aud wi
oat that OF the Federal Government. Was
the purpose of the fifteenth amendment
the simple declaration that no State shol
make or enforce any law which shall abrit
the privileges and immunities Of citizens Of
United States, to transfer the security and y
lection of all the civil rights which we HI
mentioned, from the States to the Federal q
ernment2 And where tits declared that G.,
gress shall have the power to enforce that n
Gle, was II Intended to bring within the pov
of Congress the entire domain of civil rig
heretofore belonging exclusively 10 the State
All this and more must follow II the propo
..f 1nsn .lsaar ~ H.