Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1883-05-16
United States Supreme Court.

ne supreme VI
has reached the end OF the session which
began last October. The term is noticea-
be as the first one within four or i've
years during which q full bench of nine
justices has sat. 1t Is also noteworthy for
the many elaborate opinions on i'm.
portant questions of constitutional law
that have been rendered.
The opinion handed down Ia the Illinois
Granger case" upholds the power of the
State to reduce railroad fares, even where
the company had heen authorized TO
charge such rates as it might see fl. This
decision may prove instructive to the OPP
ponents of the constitutionality of the five
cent fare bill in this state. Ia the Curtis
case. decided early in the session, the
court affirmed for the first time the right
of congress to regulate the federal civil
service by prohibiting the political assess.
ment ofgovernment officers and employees
and the power thus defined was promptly
exercised BY congress in the enactment OF
more thorough and stringent law for
the suppression OF Hubbelism than that
under which Curtis was indicted and con
victed. In setting aside the Kuklux law
AS unconstitutional. tue court imposed an
important Limitation upon the powers
hitherto exercised by congress. and laid
down principles which call in question
the entire civil rights Legislation OF cen
gress. II is held that while congress may
protect colored citizens against hostile
state action, it has no power under the
fourteenth amendment to punish any
violation OF their rights by individuals
The Kuklux law was intended to protect
the blacks Of The south agains. the VIC
lence and ou.rages Of organized bands Of
desperadoes. But this, the court held,
was a matter falling exclusively within
the criminal jurisdiction OF the several
states. because for such offences individu-
ais, and not the state, were responsible
On the same principle the acts OF congress
passed to secure the civil rights Of colored
citizens in hotel. public conyeyances,
theatres and other places of public amuse-
ment would seem to be imperative where
such rights are not denied by local
egislation or other state authority.
Another point under the fourteenth
amendment decided by the court for the
| first Time Is that state law prohibtlr g
he intermarriage of whites and blacks is
not contrary TO the amendment.
The opinion Of the court ia the case OF
the Arlington estate wss an important
departure from the principle hitherto
recognized as 10 the right of citizen to
sue the government. Tue opinion OF the
court in the case of the Arlington estate
was an important departure from the
| principle hitherto recognized as to tie
| light Of a citizen to sue the government
The theory has been generally received
| haf - ;
without its consent. Ibis doctrine is not
| iue 10 the constitution or statutes of the
\ United States, out has grown up in thi.
country on English principles and prece
| tents. Four justices maintained in the
Arlington case that without the consent
| Of the government a suit could not be
| brought by any individual either directly
| against the goyernmen. or against an
nficer OF the government. The majority
pt the court conceded that snch sui
cannot be brought directly agains. thu
government, but held that a citizen NAV
sue an officer the government 10 enforce
what are practically his rights againsl
he government itself. This is a serou-
nroad in the interest OF popular right,
upon theory which has been i'm porte ed
nto our system of government without
express law or good reason TO sustain il.
The most important decisions rendered
| during the session were those relating &c
reputation. In the cases OF New Hamp
shire and New York against Loui,ians
The court very properly held that sui
can not be brought against one state by
smother state acting as an assignee OF ont
of its own citizens. But the opinions o
| I, he RI IL, he 10 I - T -;
bond cases have met WITH good deal o
adverse criticism. The principle ba:
! often been affirmed that state can nj
destroy or materially injure the remedy
OF a contract with its creditors with
out impairing the obligation OF the
contract in violation of the feder
al constitution. In the Virginia bon,
case it appeared tina, the legislation Of
hat state had virtually destroyed the
remedies on which the creditors haC
relied in accepting the bonds of the state
but the repudiating legislation was heic
TO be constitutional by 4 majority of the
court. In the Louisiana case principle
that may prove even more mischevious il
It's consequences was affirmed. L. wa
held by a N ,jority of the court tina
stale which consents to be sue,
| oy it's creditors when It's bonds are issnec
thereby making he rights to sue remed,
for enforcing lis obligations may at any
time al erward Withdraw such consen
hus deprive the creditor Of his remedy
The high character OF the cour. for learn
ing and integrity is beyond question Blu
be practical effec. OF these decisions mus
De to make reputation easy. Two
justices-Field and Harlan-stou.ly main
aimed that the decisions we're contrary t,
principles which the court has repea tedl,
affirmed.
No greater question was brought befor,
The court during the year than tina
presented by the California tax case. Thi
case raises the issue whether the pova
OF the state to tax corporations within il
Jurisdiction is controlled BY the fourteenth
amendment to the federal constitution
The vast importance of the qqestio,
becomes apparent when it is considere,
that its decision will affect all corporation
except municipal in every state of III,
Union. Its difficulty may he inferre,
from the fact that though The case wa
argued several months ago, the court ha
adjourned without giving its opinion.