Page images
PDF
EPUB

Give an example of usual punishment?

233.

What of the reserved rights ?

What is
enumera-
tion?
71, 138.

For what was the

amendment intended?

Define
"deny"?
Define "dis-
parage"?

the illegal sale and il'egal keeping of intoxicating liquors. It appears from the record that the fine and punishment in the case before us was fifty dollars, and imprisonment at hard labor in the house of correction for three months. We perceive nothing excessive, or cruel, or unusual in this. The object of the law was to protect the community against the manifold evils of intemperance. The mode adopted, of prohibiting under penalties the sale and keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors, without license, is the usual mode adopted in many, perhaps all, of the States. It is wholly within the discretion of State legislatures. Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 480. The amendment is an exact transcript of a clause in the English Bill of Rights of 1688. It was intended to warn our government against such violent proceedings. See 5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. 110; 2 Elliot's Debates, 345; 3 Id. 345; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 225, 226; Rawle's Const. ch. 10, pp. 130, 131; Story's Const. § 1903, 1904.

This amendment does not apply to the States, but only restricts the national government. (Barker v. The People, 3 Cow. 686 James v. Commonwealth, 12 Sergt. and Rawle, 220; Barron v. The Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243.) Story's Const. § 1904; Pervear v. The Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 480.

[ocr errors]

'CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENTS."-The disfranchisement of a citizen is not an unusual punishment. Barber v. The People, 20 Johns. 459. The punishments of whipping and standing in the pillory are abolished by act 28th February, 1839, § 5, Stat. 322. See James v. Commonwealth, 12 S. & R. 220.

ARTICLE IX.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage, others retained by the people.

268. "ENUMERATION."-[Lat. Enumero.]-The counting or telling by numbers. Webster's Dic., ENUMERATION.

"OF CERTAIN RIGHTS."-This has reference to the several general and special POWERS granted, surrendered, or delegated to the different departments of the government. It was intended to prevent any perverse or ingenious misapplication of the maxims, that an affirmation in particular cases implied a negation in all others; and, e converso, that a negation in particular cases implies an affirmation in all others. (Federalist, Nos. 83, 84; No. 83 is reprinted in Story's Const. § 1768, 3d ed. pp. 574-582). Story's Const. § 1905. See also Id. § 448.

"DENY"-[Lat. denego.]-To contradict; gainsay; disown; reWebster's Dic., DENY.

ject.

"DISPARAGE"-[Norman, desperegar]. This word is strangely used here. It literally means to dishonor by an unequal match or marriage; to match unequally; to dishonor or injure by comparison with something of less value or excellence; to undervalue. Webster's Dic., DISPARAGE.

"RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE."- "PEOPLE" here must be used in 6, 269, 251, the sense of "WE THE PEOPLE" in the preamble, and in the 250. tenth amendment. To illustrate the right of appeal "upon the law and facts," was given to the Supreme Court. It had been objected, 260–262, that this denied or disparaged the right of trial by jury, as under- 276–277. stood at common law. Hence the sixth amendment. Federalist, No. 83. And hence the declaration of the same general principle in this amendment.

ARTICLE X.

the powers

The powers not delegated to the United States How are by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the not States, are reserved to the States respectively or to reserved? the people.

delegated

note.

6.

269. "THE POWERS" of course mean all those which had been What are committed to the different departments of the government. the “DELEGATED."—[Lat. Delego].—To intrust; to commit; to deliver delegated powers? to another's care and exercise. Webster's Dic., DELEGATE. 71-138, 162, The secessionists laid great stress upon the word "delegate," and every and attached to it the meaning that the States had, in fact, surrendered none of their sovereignty; but only created a common agency with certain powers, in trust, which each State, for itself, had the right to resume at pleasure. The "nor prohibited to the tates," could have little force with those holding such doctrines. It has been so fashionable to interpolate, "expressly," that many believe the participle "delegated" is so qualified. But such a qualification was moved in Congress and rejected. 2 Lloyd's Debates, 234, 243, 244; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 404; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 325; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 49; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 225, 226; 2 Article of Confederation, ante, p. 9. See Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 596.

All powers not delegated (not all not expressly delegated) and not prohibited are reserved. (McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 406, 407.) Story's Const. § 1908.

See United States v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234. The same reserva- 133, 155. tion, in substance, was contained in the second article of the Articles of Confederation, except that the word "expressly" was there placed before the word "delegated." Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. Rep. 416; McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wh. 327. See ante, p. 9. This amendment compared with the 9th section of the 1st article. They contain no inhibition upon Congress to legislate upon legal tenders. Metropolitan Bank v. Van Dyck, 27 N. Y. Rep. 418.

ARTICLE XI.

limitation

The judicial power of the United States shall not What is the be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity of judicial commenced or prosecuted against one of the United power?

What caused this amendment?

States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.

270. "THE JUDICIAL POWER," and "ANY SUITS IN LAW OR EQUITY," are to be taken as an amendment of the first section of 195, 199, 200, the third article, so as to take away the jurisdiction of suits against 205a, 210, States by individuals. The amendment was caused by the decision 271. in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419, 475; S. C. 2 Cond. 635; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 14, p. 278; Cohens v. Virginia, Wheat. 381,

What is now the rule?

In what character

406.

This decision held that the original Constitution embraced suits by as well as against States. Story's Const. § 1683. See Federalist, Nos. 80, 81; 2 Elliot's Debates, 300, 301, 401, 405; Curtis' Com.

61. The suits against the States were principally for money sequestrated or confiscated in the hands of the debtors of the British loyalists. The amendment was held to extend to all pending suits, and they were dismissed. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 294; Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; S. C. 3 Dall. 1.

So that now no suit lies by citizen or alien against a State, in the courts of the United States.

271. "AGAINST ONE OF THE UNITED STATES."-Where the State is sued, and made a party on the record in its political capaci State sue? ty, this amendment applies; and the State may be considered as

must the

205.

What suits did the amendment include?

Does the

cases?

205a

a party on the record when its chief magistrate is sued, not by his name, but by his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official character. (The Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110, 123, 124.) Curtis' Com. § 67-70.

This amendment was construed to include suits then pending, as well as suits to be commenced thereafter; and accordingly, all the suits then pending were dismissed without any further adjudication. (Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378.) Story's Const. § 1683. For a history of the amendment, see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406.

The amendment only applies to original suits; not to appeals or writs of error for revision. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) Story's Const. § 1864.

272. "BY CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF ANY FOREIGN STATE."The power of these to sue the State was simply taken away by the amendment.

It does not extend to suits of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction. suit apply to Olmstead's Case, Brightly, 9. See Ex parte Madrazo, 1 Pet. 127. admiralty If the State be not necessarily a defendant, though its interest may be affected by the decision, the courts of the United States are bound to exercise jurisdiction. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 550; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115. For the history of this amendment, see Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 471, 475. A State, by becoming interested with others in a banking or trading corporation, or by owning all the capital stock, does not impart to that corporation any of its privileges or prerogatives; it lays down its sovereignty, so far as respects the transactions of the corpora

tion, and exercises no power or privilege in respect to those transactions not derived from the charter. Bank of the United States v. Planter's Bank of Georgia, 9 Wh. 904; Bank of Kentucky v. Wiston, 3 Pet. 431; Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Id. 324; Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. 12; Curran v. Arkansas. 15 Id. 309. And see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 264. Where a State sues in its own courts, and obtains a judgment against a citizen, the defendant may prosecute a writ of error in the Supreme Court, and test the constitutionality of a State law. Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; and the Arkansas, Kentucky, and Alabama cases above cited.

The State is not a party unless it appears on the record as such, 205, 271, either as plaintiff or defendant. It is not sufficient that it may have an interest in the cause, or that the parties before the court are sued for acts done as agents of the State. (Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411; State of New York v. Connecticut, 3 Dall. 1-6; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115-139; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 15, p. 302; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 846.) Story's Const. § 1865, notes 1, 2.

ARTICLE XII.

273. See Art. II., Sec. 3, pp. 164-166, notes 168, 168a, 168b, for this amendment. It was considered proper by the editor to transfer it to its appropriate place. It does not disturb the arrangement in the original Constitution, nor in the analysis and index. See ante, p. 46.

ARTICLE XIII.

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except How was slavery as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall abolished? have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their juris diction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article The power? by appropriate legislation.

274. The following is the proclamation which declared the 13th When did amendment in force :

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, to all to whom these presents may come, greeting:

Know ye, that whereas the Congress of the United States, on the 1st of February last, passed a resolution which is in the words following, namely:-

[ocr errors]

"A Resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a
proposition to amend the Constitution of the United States.
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of both houses

this article take effect?

17, 275.

concurring), That the following article be proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths of said legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the said Constitution, namely:"-[Here follows the amendment.]

And whereas it appears from official documents on file in this department that the amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed, as aforesaid, has been ratified by the legislatures of the States of Illinois, Rhode Island, Michigan, Maryland, New York, West Virginia, Maine, Kansas, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Missouri, Nevada, Indiana, Louisiana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Vermont, Tennessee, Arkansas, Connecticut, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Alabama, North Carolina, and Georgia; in all twenty-seven States:

And whereas the whole number of States in the United States is thirty-six; and whereas the before specially-named States, whose legislatures have ratified the said proposed amendment, constitute three-fourths of the whole number of States in the United States:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State of the United States, by virtue and in pursuance of the second section of the act of Congress, approved the twentieth of April, eighteen hundred and eighteen, entitled "An act to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States and for other purposes," do hereby certify that the amendment aforesaid has become valid, to all intents and purposes, as a part of the Constitution of the United States.

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the Department of State to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this eighteenth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixtyfive, and of the independence of the United States of America, the ninetieth.

[L. S.]

WILLIAM H. SEWARD,

Secretary of State.

This proclamation is given to show the views of the executive, that the seceded States had a right to vote upon the amendinent, and did in fact, make up the number necessary to put it into operation. The President had previously given notice, that no State would be regarded as restored until it adopted this amendment. Seward's dispatch to the governor of Florida.

List of States which have ratified the amendment to the Constitution prohibiting slavery, &c., and given official notice thereof, with the respective dates of ratification :

In 1865.-Illinois, Feb. 1; Rhode Island, Feb. 2; Michigan, Feb. 2; Maryland, Feb. 1, 3,; New York, Feb. 2, 3,; West Virginia, Feb. 3; Maine, Feb. 7; Kansas, Feb. 7; Massachusetts, Feb. 8; Pennsylvania, Feb. 8; Virginia, Feb. 9; Ohio, Feb. 10; Missouri, Feb. 10; Nevada, Feb. 16; Indiana, Feb. 16; Louisiana, Feb. 17; Minnesota, Feb. 8, 23: Wisconsin, March 1; Vermont, March 9; Tennessee, April 5,7; Arkansas, April 20; Connecticut, May 5;

« PreviousContinue »