New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-12-27
THE ARGUMENTS AND DECISION.
Try TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUSE.I


were supposed to have been settled
nv the recent amendments to the Constitution and
by Congressional and State legislation under Them
Indeed IN speaking of the effects of this decision
Mr. Just,ce Bradley SAYS in his dissenting opinion
| IT seems To me that the attempt to fasten upon
| the lawful government of Tennessee an oblga-
| ton to receive as cash bills that were issuen
under the authority of the usurping government oi
| that State whilst it was engaged In deadly "ar
oo;rst the Government of the United States, Is cal
| cnIated to introduce evils of great magnitude that
| will ultimately lead to the recognition of the war
| debts of the seeding States notwithstand-
| ing the prohibition Of the AlNth Amendment
| of the Constitution But this would regard as iaf
less evil than the establishment OF doctrines az war;
as think. with the true principles OF our National
Government az we'll as with the established rules
| of public law"
The case was that of John T. Keith, plaintiff in
error against T.. A. Clark, collector of the state
and County revenue for Madison County, in error
IN the Supreme Court of the State of Tennessee.
The facts briefly stated. are these: The State OF
| Tennessee in 1888 organized the Bank OF
Tennessee and agreed, by clause in its charter 10
receive all ITS issues Of circulating notes In pay
ment of taxes But, by Constitutional amend
ment adopted in 1868 ii declared the issues OF the
bank during the insurrectonary period void and for
babe their receipt for taxes. There was no EVIL
dence in the record that the notes offered In pay
mcnt of taxes by the plaintiff were issued IN aid OF
the rebellion or for any consideration forbidden by
the Constitution or laws Of the United States ana
the Court held that no such presumption could
arise from anything of which II could take Judlcai
notice. Upon this state of facts the majority
of the members of the United States Supreme
Court decided that the Constitutional amendment
h fha nf he
during the insurreconary period void. and forbade
their receipt for taxes, was forbidden by the pro
vision of the United State Constitution against
Impairing the obligation of contracts; also,
that the political society which i'll 1896
was organized and admitted as state
into the Union by the name of Tennessee.
has remained the same body polite to this time.
Its attempt to separate itself from the Union did
not destroy its identity State. nor free 1t from
the binding force of Constitution; also. that be-
ing the same political organization during the
rebellion and since that IL was before, all It's
acts legislative and otherwise. during the period
of the rebellion, arc valid and obligatory on the
State now, except where they done in aid of
that rebellion, or are in conflict with tho Constitu-
ton and laws of the United States, and were in
tended to impeach its authority.
! THE ARGUMENT OF THE MAJORITY OF THE COURT.
The moro important points of the argument of
the majority of the Court III support OF this decision
| may be summarized as follows:
1t held that what was called the state OF tennessee
prior TO the 9th May, 1861 became by the ordinance
Of secessiou passed that day, subdivided into two
distinct political entities. each OF which was State OF
| Tennessee. One OF them was loyal to the Federal
| Government; the other engaged In rebellion
against IT, one State composed Of the minority who
did not favor secession the other OF the majority
who did. These two States OF Tennessee engaged
| In a public against each other. TO which all
| tho legal relations, rights and obligations Of a
| public war attached. The Government Of the United
States the ally OF the loyal State OF Tennessee md
the COnfederated Rebel States the allies OF the dis
loyal state of Tennessee The loyal State OF Tennessee
with the Aid Of her ally conquered aud sulJngaed the
dsoya State of Tennessee and by right OF conquest i'm
posed upon the latter such measure OF punishment and
such syste OF laws chose and by tho law OF
quest 1t right do this. One OF the laws i'm
posed by tic conquerng State OF Tennessee the
quered State OF Tennessee was the one declaring that
| control OF affairs by the rebellious State were
| TO be held void, and that as eoDqueror and
this as valid law, This Is briefly the ground winch
The for the state is based 1t IS sufficient
sion sD' Of the state into two States lever had
any actual existence As we shall show here;
| after, there has. never been but one political
scoie IN exstouce as an organized state Of Tenessee
the day or It's admission 20 The UDion In 1896 10
tie present time III mere chimerS to assert that
state OF Tennessee conquered by force OF
|
IT, Finally. the logical legerdcrinain by which
| the State goes into rebellion. and makes while thus
its ordinary and usual functions which are necessary 10
the existence OF social life and then by Of being
stand similar physical performances on the stage.
The second proposition IN support Of this Case
serious attention IL u, as we understand H. that each
OF The eleven states WHICH passed OF secs
succeeded In their attempt to separate themselves from
tho Federal Government that during tho period which
he
were, fact no longer part OF the Union. or So the
individual States by reason OF their rebeous attitude,
| Legislation or administration are void, except AS
restoration recognized valid the principles
of comfy or sufferhnce. We cannot agree 10
| by tue inherent powers which attach to
every organized political society possessed OF
cognized principles public international law, and IL IL
opposed the weIcoisidered decisions OF tins Court
The political society which. IN 1896. became d State OF
sG s SaSs The "V Court IS the saline when !.
% The Of the GIFTED Not on
is 1t the same body polite now, but 1t has always
| and perpetual identity. Inere Always has been
from ina stain 1o Of eu SsS ienesssr and
| legislative. iis judicial depar mcnts have continued
without Interruption ana ~ regular order. IL has
changed, modified ana reconstructed Us organic law, or
State Constitution more Than once. IL has done this
before the rebellion. durng tde rebellion, and since
! the collective authority and III the name OF
body constituting the political
ETY. known State OF 1eniesscr. TINS political
body has only been ali TINS time STATE. and the
| same State, but II has always been one
| OF the United states STATE o. the UniOn. I'm
| der the CUns.i. uJiUn OF the United states by
yriue Of which Tcnncssce born nGO the family OF
states, she had lawful power 10 depart from that
Union. The effort which she made 10 So II II had
been success Ill., would have tccn 80 IN spite Of the Con
sLtuIOn aud by OF that force which III
Instances establishes for itself status which be
recognized "a without reference to question
OF right. aud which In tnls would have been Ia
exte of dies. Tucon OF tnat Constitution
| 1n IluHtln :. snfs
Uuiun. Sac never escaped the obligations thai Com
sutuou though Tor while she may have eyHded