Who are citizens of the United States? Lord Denman: "My brother Wightman asked what would have been the result if, at the end of the year, the services had been determined by the act of God. And to this no sufficient answer was given." Id. 1018. The plaintiff's right vested when the bargain was made; the subsequent interference of the colonial legislature does not prevent his recovering what was then stipulated. Id. The whole question is, who shall bear the losses occasioned by a vis major. And that depends upon the question, who was the proprietor when that loss was occasioned. Id. The question was whether the defendants were liable for the value of slaves purchased in Texas in September, 1863. "I have always regarded the proclamation of the President, issued on the 1st January, 1863, declaring the negroes free, as a war measure. The President did not base his right to issue that proclamation upon any clause of the Constitution, or even any act of Congress. It was justified by the necessities of the war, and, as commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, he resorted to it, as he himself declared, as a war measure. Its operation and effect depended wholly upon the success of the national arms. The negroes were set free, not by the mere declaration of the President that they were so, but by force of arms. Hence, I have always supposed that slaves who occupied certain sections of the country, say in Virginia and Tennessee, and who first fell under the armed control of the Union, were free sooner than those in Texas or the extreme South. If the proclamation of the President, of itself, made slaves free persons, then every negro held in bondage after the 1st January, 1863, is now entitled to sue not only for the value of his services subsequent to that time, and for damages on account of being unlawfully deprived of his liberty, but could also subject their former owners to criminal prosecutions for false imprisonment. Not believing that such an effect should be, or was intended to be given to the Proclamation, I must sustain the demurrer of the plaintiff." Connett v. Williams, United States Circuit Court (Texas), Jan. T., 1866, by Judge Thomas H. Duval. There have been State decisions to the effect that contracts made for the purchase of negroes, even before the war, but which matured after their emancipation, cannot be enforced; but the editor has not preserved the newspaper reports of them. He supposes the correct principle to be, as stated by the English bench, "Who owned the negroes when they obtained their freedom?" If they were property when sold, the purchaser must sustain the loss. [CONCURRENT RESOLUTION, RECEIVED AT DEPARTMENT OF STATE JOINT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress' assembled (two-thirds of both Houses concurring) That the following article be proposed to the legis- 6, 18, 220. latures 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 as part of the Constitution, namely: ARTICLE XIV. SEC. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. representa tioned? SEC. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among How are the several States according to their respective tives appornumbers, counting the whole number of persons in each 21-24. State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis How is the of representation therein shall be reduced in the pro- reduced? portion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. basis qualified SEC. 3. No person shall be a senator or repre- Who are dissentative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- from holdPresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under ing office? the United States, or under any State, who, having How re stored? How is the public debt guaranteed? The rebel debt, how previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as any officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. SEC. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor repudiated? any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations, and claims shall be held illegal and void. 236. SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. 275. This amendment was never submitted to the President for his approval or veto. In a message to Congress, he said, that the sending it to the States was not to be construed into an approval of its provisions. Nevertheless, it was sent by the Secretary of State to all the States. In a letter of transmission to the editor, on the 29th October, 1867, the Secretary of State remarks: "I also send an accurate copy (of the fourteenth amendment) as proposed by Congress; but as this amendment has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of the States, through their legislatures, agreeably to the requirements of the Constitution, it is not deemed expedient in this case to promulgate any official data in relation thereto." Application was then made to the clerk of the House of Representatives who politely furnished the following: Dates of the ratification of the XIVth constitutional amendment. 1866: Connecticut, June 30; New Hampshire, July 7; Tennessee, July 19; New Jersey, September 11; Oregon, September 19; Vermont, November 7. 1867: New York, January 10; Ohio, January 11 (withdrawn Jan. 1868); Nevada, January 11 and 22; Illinois, January 15; West Virginia, January 16; Kansas, January 18; Missouri, January 26; Indiana, January 29; Minnesota, February 1; Rhode Island, February 7; Pennsylvania, February 13; Wisconsin, February 13; Michigan, February 15, Massachusetts, Ratified by 22 States; rejected by 13; not acted on by 2. When submitted there were 36 States; Nebraska added, makes 37. Threefourths of all were 27, now 28. If we deduct the ten rebel States, 19 would be sufficient. In the case of Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475, it was sought to enjoin the operation of these laws upon the ground of their unconstitutionality. The arguments are fully reported; but the court limited the inquiry to the single point, Can the President be restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional? After reviewing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137, and Kendall v. Stockton & Stokes, 12 Pet. 527, it was said: "The Congress is the legislative depart- 14, 165. ment of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance." Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 500. The rule was denied. Id. 501. 195. 236. 274. There are many persons whose opinions are entitled to respect, who maintain that the ratification is complete without the concurrence of the non-reconstructed States. (See Farrar's Const. § 448, note 1.) If this view be correct, then the ratification is already accomplished, and the fourteenth amendment stands as a part of the Constitution. But if it be not correct, the editor doubts not but the amendment will be adopted within the present year, by enough of those ten States (unless prevented by civil war), to insure its ratification, after the same manner that the thirteenth amendment was ratified. It has therefore been printed, to prevent future confusion, in the index, and stereotyped pages. Should it never go into practical operation, the constitutional student will reject the propositions which it embraces. It has been seen that the Secretary of State discards the notion that the amendment is yet complete. It is also painfully true, that in a message to the Senate, and in other public declarations, the President questioued the expediency, if he did not deny the power of Congress to submit this amendment, while a portion of the States were not represented and allowed to vote upon such submission. But this argument would also go to the thirteenth amendment, unless, indeed, there 117, 118. be a distinction between the rights of States of the Union, when engaged in actual war against the United States, and after that resistance has been conquered and such rebellious peoples have sent back their representatives to Congress. 286. 274. 46. 274. 276. It has been seen that the President imposed upon these same States the condition of adopting the thirteenth amendment, and thus forever destroyed slavery within the jurisdiction of the United States. This was claimed in virtue of the war power, and for the general welfare of the whole Union. The thing has been 11, 79, 80. done, and the complete change of organic law has gone into history. 236. Act of How are The country accepted the act, and there were those who thought this enough But Congress, adopting the view that further amendments were necessary; and, either holding that the ratification of three-fourths of all the States was required; or else wishing to test the fact, that these States so lately in rebellion, had given evidence of loyalty and submission, and claiming for Congress the power to impose further conditions than the President had demanded, with a view to secure liberty and equal political rights to all, and to compel those States to ratify the · amendment, enacted the following series of laws: certain rebel States to be divided, "An Act to provide for the more efficient Government of the Rebel States. "WHEREAS no legal State governments or adequate protection for life or property now exists in the rebel States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and whereas it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States, until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established; therefore, "Be it enacted, &c., That said rebel States shall be divided into military districts, and made subject to the military authority of the United States as hereinafter pre cribed, and for that purpose Virginia shall constitute the first district; North Carolina and South Carolina, the second district; Georgia, Alabama, and authority? Florida, the third district; Mississippi and Arkansas, the fourth district; and Louisiana and Texas, the fifth district. and subjected to military Is the to assign an "2. It shall be the duty of the President to assign to the comarmy officer mand of each of said districts, an officer of the army, not below the to command rank of brigadier-general, and to detail a sufficient military force each dis- to enable such officer to perform his duties, and enforce his trict & Military force to be detailed! What are the duties ers of authority within the district to which he is assigned. "3. It shall be the duty of each officer assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to of command- be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals; and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose, and all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void. districts? Local civil tribunals? State interference de clared null ? Persons under military arrest to be speedily tried? What rule of punishment? "4. All persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual punishment shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or liberty of any person, shall be executed until it is approved by the officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, except in sentences of so far as they conflict with its provisions: Provided, That no senmilitary tence of death under the provisions of this act shall be carried into be executed? effect without the approval of the President. How are tribunals to |