Year: 1872

Decision from the United States SUI


preme Court.


Upon an appeal from the Supreme Court of
Georgia, in case Of q contract Involving the
price Of negro slave, very important deci-
sion was rendered in the Supreme Court Of the
United States on Monday last, touching the
rights and powers Of the States and Of the
United States, under the national const-
tuition, as it was and as it is Before
the Georgia Court the defendant against
whom the note for the price Of the slave was
held) pleaded that under the new State consti-
tuition the Coyrt had no jurisdiction over the
subject, and the Judgment Of the Court was for
the defendant, and upon three propositions
which rise to the wisdom Of Dogberry.


Thus the Supreme Court Of Georgia
afirmed-frst, that when the State constitu-
ton Of 1868 was adopted Georgia was not a
State Of the Union but conquered Territory,
completely at the mercy Of the conqueror, and
that accordingly the constitution of the United
States in reference to the obligation Of con-
tracts, as to all other things would not apply
to Georgia I; second that her new constitution
does not affect this contract (the note given
for the purchase Of the slave), but only denies
jurisdiction to her Courts to enforce it third
that this constitution was forced upon the
State by Congress and is the act Of Congress,
and not Of the State, and that though State
cannot pass law impairing the validity of
contracts, Congress can and has passed such
law in this State constitution, and therefore
the contract upon this negro slave is impaired.
and the note for the money due on his pur.
chase goes for nothing being reduced to the
same value as the promises to pay Of the "Con-
federate States," which is the value Of waste
paper. re,'''-- 3. g,


The Supreme Court Of the United States re-
verses this Dogberry decision from Georgia.
and against it affirms that the national con-
stitution created not confederacy of States
but government Of individuals-in other
words, government of the people of ohe
United States as q nation; that their OBJ
ject was an indestructible government that
the doctrine Of secession is the doctrine of
treason, and practical secession is practical
IeaSOn, tn0L the states In rebellion were
never out of the Union, and never absolved
from the duties, liabilities and restrictions al
ways incumbent upon them that the present
State constitution of Georgia was the act of
Georgia, and was accepted by Congress, and
that the action Of Congress on the subject can
not be inquired into, the authority Of Con-
gress in such matters being conclusive.


This decision is now part of the supreme
law of the land, and in sweeping away all
these fallacies that the Union is a confederacy
of States, that each State has reserved to
itself the sovereign right of secession, and that
the rebel States were out Of the Union during
the war Of their Confederate rebellion, it will,
we hope, convince even Alexander H. Stephens
that his State rights dogmas are really dead
and done for-dead and buried beyond redemp-
ton. In the single pungent declaration that
'the doctrine of secession is the doctrine of
treason" the Supreme Court covers the whole
ground, and makes all that has been done in
the work of putting down the rebellion and in
the work of Southern reconstruction con-
sistent cohesive and good and strong