The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1877-04-19
states, Rights in the Supreme Court.


Some time ago one CHARLES Fox, OF New
York, devised his entire property TO inc
Government OF the United states LOT .Ie
pnrnose Of aiding In the discharge OF the
debt created by the war for the suppression
Of the so-called "rcbellion.' The oe',se
,e6 to n suit, and the case went from the
Surrogate to the Court OF Appeals OF NE"
York. and thence to the Supreme eo",t y,
the United States, where it was oec'ue,,
Tact Monday. The Supreme Court ati'fneu
+ho ,,,acrent OF the two courts below tnat
sho RATED States could not take rea'
estate nnder the statutes OF Ne" IL. -
and that the will was void rs oe-
risc n, lands. but that the Govern
mont could take the personal e>'a'e.
The opinion of the Court goes on 10 say tnat
whilst there lis no question that the unlted
States NAV hold real property in the State
whenever needed for the use OF the 3oF-
eminent in the execution OF its powers, nor
that in such a case, il it cannot be acquired
nv voluntary arrangement with the owners,
it may be taken against their Will oy the
Government in the exercise OF the power OF
eminent domain, yet the power OF the state
to regulate the tenure OF real property WITH
in its limits. and the means OF its aeou'Sl-
ton and transfer. and the rules OF its de-
scent, and the extent to which testament
tarv disposition Of it may be exercised by
its owners. is held TO be undoubted" And,
therefore, the decision Of the court below
was affirmed.
There is nothing new IN the decision, so
far as we know; it is simply an interesting
one: but the opinion OF the Supreme Court
contains one dictum which indicates thai
that tribunal may yet be instrumental IN
educating the northern mind up to the
point Of understanding the complex nature
Of our Government, and OF approaching
the difference between license and liberty
between despotism and freedom-betweer
consol,dationism and home-rule. The Court
said:
..Thc right OF the State in this respect
follows from its sovereignty within its linn
its as to all matters over which jurisdiction
2 has not been expressly or by necessary i'm
plication transferred to the Federal GOV
eminent. AS the statutes OF the State O
- New York prohibit such deVlseS, tneFe l.
no power to make them.' . -
4 court composed OF Democratic Judges
real statesmcn-trained in the school OF JET
PERSON, MADISON, MONROE, and TUCKER
could not better have expressed the ide'
contained in the dictum. 1t is indeed but
paraphrase OF the language Of the Fedora
: Constitution itself, which declares that 81 the
powers not delegated to the United States
BIZ the Constitution, nor prohibited by it t
the States, are reserved to the States respec
tively or to the people," yet it is a doctrine
: which seems in these latter years to have
been, lost sight of entirely. 1t iSia gooC
sign to see this doctrine revived.
s-z Applying this doctrine to the existing
: state of affairs in Louisiana, we lind thai
the President has, no right to use the army
of the United States to keep the peace in
that State, unless the army be called for IN
the manner prescribed by the Constitution
itself. The State has never either d" eX
pressly or by necessary implication trans
ferred to tue Federal Government" The
power to protect her citizens in the enjoy
ment OF their rights, nor the power to keep
the peace in Louisiana, nor the power tc
protect her from domestic violence
These powers all inhere in the State Gov
ernment =. ss*s2 r. z7..s '-''%