The Morristown gazette. [volume] (Morristown, Tenn.) 1867-1920, 1878-12-11
TIE TORBETT LSSHE

The Supreme Court of the United
States last Monday reversed the judg-
ment of the Supreme Court of Tenncs-
see in the Keith case, involving the
NEW issue" of the Bank of Tennessee.
The Supreme Court of this State held
that the section of the bank charter
obIigating the State to take the money
for taxes, could be regarded as subsist-
ing in 1861, (wEcn the notes were is
sued) only through the re-enactment or
tacit recognition of the insurTectionary
State Government, and that the pledge
of that Government was not protected
by the constitution of the United States
against Reputation by the restored
State Government. Below we publish
the decision of the United States Su-
preme Court rejecting this view:
No. 67.-JOhn Keith, plaintiff in er-
roT, against E. A. CLARK, collector, etc,
in error, to the Supreme Court of Ten
nessee. The principal question involv-
ed in this cause is whether the State of
Tennessee is Obliged to receive, in pay
nttOf taxes, The now deprecated notes
of the Bank of Tennessee, as it bound
itself to do by section II of the charter
OF Inc DanK, In 1865, or vVl4etllcr it CON
repudiate that contract as to the notes
issued after May 6, 1861, on the ground
that the State Government was then
fOrcibly seized by insurgents and its
powers usurped- The cause raises sew
eTal Federal questions of interest and
Importance. The court, in the opinion
delivered by Justice Miller, holds that
the theory that there can be two differ
ens entities called States, within the
same geographical limits-one loyal and
one rebelliOus-is fanciful and untena-
BILE that there never has been more
than one political society in existence
as an organized State of Tennessee, from
the day OF its admission into the Union
IN 1876 to the present hour second
that there is no foundation for the theO-
~ which maintains such separation of
seeding States from the National Gov
eminent as to rebellion is void and in
valid, unless ratified by a positive law
enacted since their restoration third,
that there is no evidence in this case to
prove that the issue of notes by the |
Bank of Tennessee, after May 6, 1861, !
was made for the purpose of giving aid |
and comfort to the insurgents or in Vio- |
latiOn of the Constitution and laws of |
the United States, and that consequent |
lyi the contract which the State made in |
1884 to take the notes of the Bank of |
Tennessee in payment of taxes is and /
has all the time been under the protec-
tion of the Federal Constitution. The /
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Ten
nessee is therefore, reversed, and the /
cause remended for further proceedings /
in accordance with this opinion Jus.
lice bradley delivered dissenting
opinion, denying the assumption that
the governments of seeded States We're
lawful governments. The Chief J ustice
also delivered a dissenting opinion, in
which it was maintained that the ordi-
nance of Tennessee invalidating the
contract of 1888 as far as the new issue
of bank notes is concerned, was an au-
lucrative declaration by the people of
the State, who were cognizant of the
facts that the issues in question after
May @, 1861, were in furtherance of the
rebellion and therefore, not entitled to
constitutional protection.
sssI LIABLE TO TAXATION.
No. 73.-Memphis & Charleston Rail
road Company ct ais, plaintiffs in error,
against A. l.. Gaines, Comptroller, in
error, fo-the Supreme Court of Tenness-
zee The principal question in this
cause is whether the plaintiffs in error
can be compelled to pay taxes upon their
capital stock of the road and appurten-
lnces in accordance with the recent acts
If the General Assembly of Tennessee, {
where by their original charters they {
VeregYaTiously exempted from taxation.
Decree is affirmed with costs
THE gWEGTERN- " n RATTROAD