Year: 1867

day beam comes, in mercy given;


Before its ray the storm-clouds sever


| The wandering soul hath rest in Heaven.


MARY NJ. SHARRow.


Status Of the states.


The Supreme Court of the Z. S. has re-
Gently decided two cases in which the
status of the Southern States is directly re-


ferred to and determined. In case from


Mississippi, the Court held that when a


Judgment is concluded by court in one
state it is equally concluded as to every
other state, and SO remains until set aside
by superior court or by court of chan
Gerry, on the basis of section first, article
four, of the Constitution; that full force
and credit shall be given in each state to
the public acts, records and judicial pro-
ceedinss of every other state. Here is q
clear recognition of the fact that Missis-
sippi is state in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Contribution of the u. S.,
and that the action of her courts is con-
elusive in every other State in the Union
until set aside by superior court. This
decision will put the Bay State lawyers in
rather awkward fix. In Congress they
are maintaining the proposition that Mis-
sssippi is no longer State that her State
! existence has ceased, and she is a mere
Territory, a division of country to be gov
erned as Congress may direct. But. sup
pose q judgment against party in Mis-
sissippi court is sent to one of these law
yers for collection, what position will he
then assume? The Supreme Court says
that q judgment concluded in Massaehu-
fho basis of Il
four, of the Constitution, and that ground
must be occupied or the claim will be lost.
If it be taken, the status of the States is
conceded, and a full acknowledgment made
that in denying the existence of the States
they are flying in the face of the Constitu-
ton, and acting as partisans who are will
ing to peril the very existence of free in
stitutions in this nation in order to contin-
ue political power in the hands of sectional
faction. Il. a State is in condition to claim
the protection Of one portion of the Con-
stitution, certainly it cannot in justice or
fairness be deprived of other rights guar
anteed by that instrument.


The Supreme Court also acknowledged
the status of the State of Arkansas by
overruling the judgment of the Supreme
Court of that State, and declaring that the
taxing of swamp and overfowed lands
within the period of ten years was viola
ton of contract between the United States
and the State Of Arkansas-Congrcss hav-
ing exempted them from taxation for that
length of time, with a view to encourage
the reclamation of the lands. If Arkansas
was but division of country, Territory,
the Supreme Court of the United States
,.,o,,0A folly oho,,f Tho Ss.CI tu Of
the Supreme Court of that State" or de-
eide !" eose upon the principle that there
has been "violation Of contract between
the United States and the State of Arkan-
sas." Again, if the position assumed by
Senator Sumner and Mr.. Stevens be cor
rect; if the Southern States have lost their
State existence, and are merged in the ter
ritorial possessions of the nation, then the
language Of the Supreme Court of the
United States in the Arkansas case is idle,
and destitute either Of point or meaning.
A Territory has no such sovereign attrib-
utes as those conceded to Arkansas in the
decision just quoted, and the Supreme
Court in denominating that State State
in its opinion upon the swamp land case,
and giving full consideration and respect
to the Judgment Of its supreme judicial
tribunal, has put upon record complete
refutation Of the divisional and territorial
theories of the Radicals.


The point to be considered now is, should
States, the constitutional aud legal status
Of which is thus acknowledged by the Su-
preme Court of the land, be deprived of
their full standing in the Union? Section
first, article four, of the Constitution, in
setting forth the rights of the several
States, declares that "full force and cred
it shall be given in each State to the pub
lie acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of every other State" That section Of
the Constitution, the Supreme Court has
announced, is as binding now as at any
other time. But article FIVE of the Con-
stitution says that "no State, without its
consent, shall be deprived of its equal suf-
rage in the Senate" If the former con-
stitutional provision is binding and opera
tive at this time, why not the latter? The
fact that Congress can override one part of
the supreme law Of the nation would ar
que that they may attempt to make null
and void the whole. But if this attempt
is ever made, they will meet such decisions
as those quoted, in addition to that in the
military commission case from Indiana,
and then the gap between the party in
power and the friends of the Union and
constitutional liberty will be widened SO
materially as to alarm even those who now
give tacit consent to the position and ac-
tons Of the party in power. ..


The Democratic party is strengthened
in the confidence and respect Of the think
ing men Of the country, by each decision
of the Supreme Court upon questions vital
to the perpetuity of constitutional liberty
in this notion. The Democratic party
protested against the exercise Of such pow
ers as those claimed by military commits
siens. They were denounced as "disloy-
al for SO doing, but the Supreme Court
endorses their position. The Democratic
party maintained the doctrine. and still
holds the position, that the southern states
were never out of the Union, and that Sc
cession was mere assumption Of power,
no warrant being found in the Constitu-
ton for such action on the part Of the
states. The Supreme Court is with the
| Democratic partv on that question, and