The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1879-01-08
THE STATE RIGHTS TIE 9RY sUS-
TANNED By The SUPREME
COURT CT TIE UNITED
STATES.
THE S0ETHREN STATES DID
NOT LOSE THEIR
RY SECESSION.
Notes of @he Bank of Tennessee
Valid nd Obligatory, Although
Issued After Secession.


First-Where a case has been decided in
an interior coaTt OF State on single
point which would give this court juriSdlc-
ton, it will not be presumed here that the
Supreme Court OF the State decided 1t on
some other ground not found in he recoId
or suggested in that court
Second--The Safe of Tennessee having
organized in 1888 The Bank OF Tennessee.
agreed by q clause in the charJer TO re-
crive all its issues of circulating notes ~
payment OF taxes, bur by constitutional
amendment adopted in 1865. it declared the
issues OF he bank duri' z the Instruction
airy period voit, and forbid their receipt for
taxes: Held that this was forbidden by the
constitutional provision against lmparlng
tie obligation OF contracts.
Third--There i no evidence in this record
that the notes offered in payment OF taxes
by plan if were issued in aid OF the rebel
lion, or ia any consideration forbidden by
the Constitution or laws of the Unifed
States. aud uo such presumD tion arises from
anything OF which this court can take Ju-
dicial notice.
Fourth-The political society which in
1896 was org n Zed and admitted rs 4 > e
INTO rhe Union. by the name OF Ten
neS>ee. has remained the same body polite
TO this time It's attempt to separate itself
from that Union did not destroy lis identity
a. a State nor free il from the binding force
of The Federal Constitution.
Fiith-Being the same political org]nl-
cation during the rebellion and since. that
it was before, an ganiZatlon essential 70
the existence OF society, all its act, iegisla-
tive and otherwise. during the period OF re-
bellion. are valid and obligatory on the
State now, except where they were done
in aid o. that rebellion or are IN CONNECT
with the Constitution and laws OF tie
United States, or were intended to impeach
its authority.
SixJh-If the notes which were the foun-
datiOn of this suit were Issued on conSld-
Grafton which would make them void tor
any of the reasons mentioned, it is for the
party asserting their invalidity to set up
and prove the facts on which such plea Is
founded.
Mr.. Justice Miller delivered the opinion
of the court.
Noticing the objection that each of the
eleven Southern States destroyed its identi-
ty by the act of secession aud war, the
learned Justice said:
l cannot agree to this doctrine Il
i opposed by the Inherent powers
which attach to every organized Po-
litical society possessed Of the right oil
selt-government. lie is opposed to the rec
ogniZed principles of public interuat' onal
law, and it Is opposed to the well considered
decision of this court.
Nations or States" says Vattel, ''are
bodies polite, societies OF men united to-
gether for the promotion of their mutual
safety and advantage by the joint efforts OF
their com bined strength, such society
has her affairs and her interests. She deib-
, crates and takes resolutions in common
| thus becoming moral person who possesses
an understanding and viii peculiar t.
herself, and is susceptible of obligations ana
riqhts - Laws OF Nations, section l.
Cicero and subsequent public jursts de-
fine State to be Il body political or society
of men united together for the purpose oI
prom citing their mutual safety aud aGVa T.
| tage by their combined strength. (Whea-
tons International Law, section H. Such
body society when once organized as a
State by an established government, must
remain so until it is destroyed. This may
be done by di>integratiOn of its parts, by
| its absorption into and Identification with
some other State or nation, or by the ALSO
| lutte and total dissolution of the ties whicI
| bind the society together. We know OF no
other way in which il can cease to be "A State
No change of its internal polity, no modItl-
cation OF its organization or system of gov
ernmenU, nor any change in its external re-
| lations short OF cHtire absorption in another
State can deprive it of existence or destroy
its identity. (Wheaton's international Law
| section 22.)
Let us illustrate this by two remarkable
periods in the history of England anC
| France
After the revolution in England which
| dethroned and decapliated Charles l.. whicl
| installed Cromwell as supreme, whom hi
| successors called a usurper; after the name
|
| Kingdom of England To the Commonwealth
| of England, and when, after all this. th'
| son of the behtaded monarch came to hi,
own, treaties made in the interregnum were
| held valid, the Judgment of the courts were
! respected. and the obligations assumed by
the Government were never disputed.
so of France. Her bloody revolution
! which came near diSsOlVing the bonds Of so
ciety itself, her revolutionary directory, hel
| consul, her Emperor Napoleon, and al theiI
| Official acts have been recognized by the ma
| tiOns by the other nations of Europe. and By
| the legitimate monarchy when restored, "a.
/ the acts of France, and binding on her PEG
! pie.
| The political society which in 1896 became
a State of the Union by the name of tn,
| State of Tennessee, is the same which i
| now represented as one of those States il
| the Congress OF the United States. No
| only is it the same body polite now, but il
| has always been the same. There has beer
| perpetual succession and perpetual identity
| There has from that time always been
| State of Tennessee, and the same State o
| Tennessee. It's executive, its legislative. II
| Judicial departments have continued with.
| out interruption and in regular order.
| has changed, m odified and reco. structed il!
| organic law, or State Constitution. NOR
| than once. 1t has done this before the re
| bellion, during the rebellion. and since tn
| re beilion. And it was always done bv TIL,
| collective authority and in the name of til,
| DOiIt
| zeal society known as the State of Tennes
| see.
The court cited numerous authorities il
| support of the position that obligation
incurred in support of the rebellion were
| migratory. and that their paymen
| was forbidden by the Constitution o
| the United States and of the reconstructed
| States, but insisted that this case did no
| come in that category. II said there is, il
the case before Us. nothing to warrant thu
conclusion that heSe notes were issued fo
| the purpose of aiding the rebellion, or u
| violation of the laws or the Constitution o
the United States. There is no plea OF tina
| kind in the record. No such questi N wa
| submitted TO 'he jury which tried the case
The sole matter stated in defense, either by
! facts found in the bill OF exceptions, or il
the decree of the court. is that the bills wer
| issued after May 8. 1861, while the State wa
| in inSurrectIOn, and, therefore. come within
| the amended Constitution of 1860 declarin!
them void. The provision of the Stat,
Constitution does not 90 upon the grouuC
| that the State bonds and bank notes, which
| it declared to be invalid, were issued in aiC
of the rebellion. but that they we're issued
by usurping Government. a reason which
we have already demonstrated to be un
| sound
We can not infer, then, that these note
| were issued in violation of any Fedora
| authority.
On the other hand, if the fact be so, moth
ing can De easier lnan 10 pIeau lt ana Prov
| it. Whenever such plea is presented W,
can, IT lt comes to Us. pass intelligentlv OIL
its validity. If issue is taken the facts car
| be embodied in bill of exceptions or som,
| other form, and we can say whether thoS.
| facts render the contract void. To under
take to assume the facts which are necessa
| ry TO invalidity on this record is to give t.
| conjecture the place of proof and to rest
| judgment of the utmost importance on the
| existence of facts not found in tn,
record nor proved by any evidence ofwhicl
| this court can akejudicial notice. We shall
when the matter is presented properly tt
Us, be free to determine, on ell the consid
| erati0ns applicable to the case, whether the
notes that may be then in controversy ar,
protected by the provision of the Constitu.
ton or not, and that is the only question o
| which, in a case like the present, we would
| have jurisdiction.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court o
/ Tannpsaae i there fore rnvnrsad and tic IN :.