The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-09
DUR GOVERNMENT.
sGE OULB's LECTURE At HECH-
MaND COLLEGE

W whether the Late constitutional
mendments Had Changed the Char
cter of eur Government and Gem
erted the People Of the Union into n
Fard.
tRichmond Dispatch,I
9fs. Davies and Curry OF the Law School
supplemented their regular lectures by
he to their assistance distinguished gen
IN of the legal profession, who have gen
sly and ably instructed the young gentle
on subjects Of which these volunteer lee
rs had made speciality. The interest
Tested in the school by the profession Is
6 gratifying. Our city possesses axcop-
ri facilities for legal instruction, and the
Om Of the trustees seems already vindi-
by the success Of this last years expert
he announcement In the Dispatch that
he Guild would lecture attracted very in
&gent and appreCiative audience.
EsJer brief and felcitOus introduction, re-
= lg to q remark of Chief Justice Chase.
entered into a discussion of the subject
AShpr the late constitutional amendments
q Essentially changed the character of our
rnmpnt and converted the people of the
N into q nation, in the proper sense Of
v
u amendments, confirming his roaaOninga
1undant quotations from decisions Of the
SINE Court, the Judge established most
tlsively the negative of the proposition
II hted as a thesis.
81 D constitutional argument should be
shed widely as a corrective of much
of opinion and construction.
said, on the occasion of one of his Judi
LISTS to Richmond, the Chief Justice said
nj Ia, hgr
@ had been believer in the State rights
y, yet he thought the recent amend
9 to the Federal constitution. and Cs-
a lily the last two, had essentially changed
81 9hafacter OF our government, made q
order of American citizens. and con
8 i the people of the Union into ma
9ye Ould said that although he knew
ikbeSe amendments were vorv radical
Il at at the time he did not concur in the
lsion of the Chief Justice, and that sub
y ut examination and reflection had more
i mtisiied him that IL was erroneous.
s THE THREE LAST AMENDMENTS.
said, in substance, that the three last
q 1ments were n strange revelation, both
light they threw on the past and their
sic significance: that our fathers found
81 tCied danger in almost every provision
constitution. except that in relation
Il power of amendment. which seems to
passed unchallcngCd; that our wonder
- Creased when we sCrutiniHc the article
IN allows amendments. in that while the
lal constitutions was required to hc sub
"a to the people of the respective States.
not necessarytu do so rs commandments,
4 could be adopted by a requisite number
tie Legislatures. He could see no Cx-
ton for this, jealous as our fathers
OF the rights OF States. except that
amers of the constitution did not be-
that the right of amendment included
Il which related TO an entirely new sub
& md at the same time essentially changed
cory of our government. Without de-
& the question, he doubted whether the
extended to n case where the proposed
n dment changed a fundamental prinCi-
& and especially whether the Supreme
would sustain an amendment adopted
ree-fOurthS of the Legislatures which
the power TO the Federal government
stermine who should be voters in the
n He held that the supreme power or
Il 2ignty OF a State resided in It's electors
s. in the political sense they were the
and that, therefore. any amendment
II u Invested State of its exclusive control
4 suffrage destroyed the sovereignty Of
State. He held that u State could not
its sovereignty by the action II its
q iature, II ut all. Moreover. he held that
J the basis of our Federal system that
Mon must be composed of republican
4 J, and that republican form is guar
Fl by the constitution to each State. and
. State could not he republican if the
of determining who its electors or
should be We're taken away. Judge
\ therefore, while denying that the four
or fifteenth amendment gave the
III of regulating suffrage to Congress-
ed whether, II such were the fact, any
amendment which struck down the re-
IAN character of the States could, at
& without the consent of the people Of all
iates, be made part of our organic law.
j rToNs OF THE STATES TO EACH OTHER
I ing up the effect of the war upon the re-
/ rs of the States to each other, he said the
u hist advocates of the national theory
contended that the war changed the
liter of our government All they
I'd was that the government was justi-
n n the use of powers not specifically
I'D in the constitution as a means Of pre-
ion in great emergency. While the
1cided the issue between the Union and
1eding States when it closed. the secod-
ates were RENTED to their rights under
constitution as well AS TO their uhliga-
THE sLAUGHTER-HoUSE CASES.
r. reverting to the difference in the ma
the first twelve amendments and the
lree, as well as to the difference Of the
5 of their birth. Judge Ould referred to
LIBERATED Slaughter-hOuSnc cases reported
wallace, wherein the legal effect of the
aree amendments WAS determined. 1t
pntanded in those cases thar they vir-
obliterated tine confederate features Of
sovernment, and consolidated the several
J into one people. Upon the narrow
" those cases was fought the great bat
tween the States and an empire. AL
b eight OF the judges constituting the
We're appolntees OF Republican admin
ions they shrank from the hideous fpa-
OF the apparitiOn when they were fully
sed, The Republican party folded its
across its breast and went out of court.
liners would not tlutter in that atmos-
The Supreme Court, which was ex-
by the managers t. perform its part |
? programme, upset the Republican
although thay hal recen ly aided two
40 roadsters, who We're supposed to be |
10 perform any service that might be |
ed OF party hack. Even one of them |
In the traces and would not go along. |
9 Slaughter-house cases and others |
followed, the supreme c urt held that |
snts which spring from citiz Itship in the |
are not under the control of Congress !