It has been well settled, that the amendments to the Constitution 277–279. of the United States were never intended to control the proceedings of the State courts. (Wood v. Wood, 2 Cowen, 819, note; Murphy v. The People, 2 Cowen, 815; Livingston v. Mayor of New York, 8 Wend. 85, 100; Warren v. Mayor of Baltimore, 7 Peters, 250; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Peters, 551; Colt v. Evers, 12 Conn. 243; In the matter of Smith, 10 Wend. Rep. 449; Lea v. Tillotson, 24 Wend. 337.) 2 Graham & Waterman's New Trials, p. 31, note. 264. AND NO FACT TRIED BY JURY SHALL BE RE-EXAMINED, &c.-See a discussion on the original Constitution (prior to this amendment), which gave appellate jurisdiction "both as to law and fact." Story's Const. § 1763-1770, and notes to third edition; Federalist, No. 81, 83. And see 1 Elliot's Debates, 121, 122; 2 Id. 346, 380-410; Id. 413-427; 3 Elliot's Debates, 139-157; 2 American Museum, 425, 534, 540, 548, 553; 3 Id. 318, 347, 419, 420. The amendment struck down the objection; and has secured the trial by jury in civil cases in the fullest latitude of the common law. (1 Tucker's Bl. Com. App. 351; Rawle's Const. ch. 10, p. 135; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492, 525.) Story's Const. § 1568. This is a prohibition to the courts of the United States to re-examine any facts tried by a jury, in any other manner. (Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447.) Story's Const. § 1770. It is denied that the judiciary act of 1789, ch. 20, § 17, 22, 24; or the act of 1824, has given the right to the Supreme Court to grant a new trial, on the mere facts. It was intimated that if Congress had attempted to confer such power, the act would be unconstitutional. Id. 265. RE-EXAMINED AFTER VERDICT.-Sec. 5 of the act of 3d March, 1863 (13 St. 756), so far as it authorizes the removal of certain causes after verdict, and a trial and determination of the facts and the law, is in violation of this amendment. (14 Mass. 412.) Patrie v. Murray, 29 How. Pr. R. 312; S. C. 43 Barb. 323; Benjamin v. Murray, 28 How. N. Y. R. 193. And see The People v. Murray, 5 Park. Cr. 577. And see Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 267; Martin Insurance Co. v. Hodgson, 6 Cr. 206; Sims v. Hundley, 6 How. 1. ARTICLE VIII. 211. 264. rule about Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive What is the fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments in- bail, fines, flicted. and punishments? 266. "EXCESSIVE BAIL."-BAIL is a delivery from custody on What is security. Burrill's Law Dic., BAIL. The meaning is, that the sum bail? required shall not be too large. Bail should not be fixed in criminal cases at a sum so large as purposely to prevent the prisoner from giving bail. United States v. Lawrence, 4 Cr. 518. 267. "NOR EXCESSIVE FINES, IMPOSED."-The offense charged was the keeping and maintaining, without license, a tenement for. Give an example of usual punishment? 233, What of the reserved rights ? What is For what was the amendment intended? Define Define "dis- 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. "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; reject. Webster's Dic., DENY. "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, 209, 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 not The powers not delegated to the United States How are by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to States, are reserved to the States respectively or to reserved? the people. delegated the powers? 71-138, 162, note. 6. 269. "THE POWERS" of course mean all those which had been What are committed to the different departments of the government. "DELEGATED."—[Lat. Delego].-To intrust; to commit; to deliver delegated to another's care and exercise. Webster's Dic., DELEGATE. 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 States by individuals. The amendment was caused by the decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419, 475; S. C. 2 Cond. 635; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 14, p. 278; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 381, 406. 205a, 210, 271. What is now the rule? In what character must the 205. 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 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. What suits did the amendment include? Does the cases? 205a 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. 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 A tion, and exercises no power or privilege in respect to those transactions not derived from the charter. Bauk 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, slavery 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except How was 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: "A Resolution submitting to the Legislatures of the several States a this article take effect? |