Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

There may, however, be occasions on which the laws and customs as they existed under the former sovereignty are so

[ocr errors]

relation to their former sovereign as occupying conqueror, and it is dissolved; but their relations to would seem to admit of no doubt each other, and their rights of prop- that during the period of their valid erty not taken from them by the existence and operation, these ororders of the conqueror, remain un- dinances must have displaced and disturbed. So, too, it is laid down superseded every previous instituby Vattel, book 3d, cap. 13, sec. 200, tion of the vanquished or deposed that the conqueror lays his hands political power which was incomon the possessions of the State, patible with them. But it has been whilst private persons are per- contended, that whatever may have mitted to retain theirs; they suffer been the rights of the occupying but indirectly by the war, and to conqueror as such, these were all them the result is, that they only terminated by the termination of change masters.' United States vs. the belligerent attitude of the parPercheman, 7 Peters, pp. 86, 87," ties, and that with the close of the (see extract omitted here and contest every institution which had quoted in note to § 398, p. 186, post), been overthrown or suspended citing also Mitchel vs. The United would be revived and re-established. States, 9 Peters, 711, and Kent's Com. The fallacy of this pretension is exvol. 1, p. 177. Then continuing: posed by the fact, that the territory never was relinquished by the conqueror, nor restored to its original condition or allegiance, but was retained by the occupant until possession was matured into absolute permanent dominion and sovereignty; and this, too, under the settled purpose of the United States never to relinquish the possession acquired by arms. We conclude, therefore, that the ordinances and institutions of the provisional Government would be revoked or modified by the United States alone, either by direct legislation on the part of Congress, or by that of the Territorial Government in the exercise of powers delegated by Congress. That no power whatever, incompatible with the Constitution or laws of the United States, or with the authority of the provisional Government, was retained by the Mexican Government, or was revived under that Government, from the period at which the pos

Accordingly we find that there was ordained by the provisional government a judicial system, which created a superior or appellate court, constituted of three judges; and circuit courts, in which the laws were to be administered by the judges of the superior or appellate court, in the circuits to which they should be respectively assigned. By the same authority, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts to be held in the several counties was declared to embrace, 1st, all criminal cases that shall not be otherwise provided by law; and, 2d, exclusive original jurisdiction in all civil cases which shall not be cognizable before the prefects and alcaldes. (Vide Laws of New Mexico, Kearney's Code, p. 48.) Of the validity of these ordinances of the provisional Government there is made no question with respect to the period during which the territory was held by the United States

incompatible with the laws and customs for the fundamental principles of the government of the new sovereignty that session passed to the authorities of | terfere on the ground that the regthe United States."

ulation of labor was within the power of the State. The syllabus states (in part):

"The cases arising under the Fourteenth Amendment are exam

The particular law is then discussed and the varied statutes affecting it, and the court refused to review the action of the lower court which up to that time, was inter-ined in detail, and are held to locutory. demonstrate that, in passing upon Fouvergne vs. City of New Or- the validity of state legislation unleans, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1855, 18 How-der it, this court has not failed to ard, 470, CAMPBELL, J. The valid-recognize the fact that the law is, ity of a decree of the proper officer to a certain extent, a progressive of the former sovereignty is estab-science; that in some States methlished in this case as stated in the ods of procedure which, at the syllabus, which is as follows: time the Constitution was adopted,

“Where a will was established were deemed essential to the proin New Orleans, in 1792, by order|tection and safety of the people, of the alcalde, an officer who had or to the liberty of the citizen, jurisdiction over the subject-have been found to be no longer matter, his decree must be considered as a judicial act, not now to be called into question.

"The courts of the United States have no probate jurisdiction, and must receive the sentences of the courts to which the jurisdiction over testamentary matters is committed, as conclusive of the validity and contents of a will. An original bill cannot be sustained upon an allegation that the probate of a will is contrary to law.

66

'Moreover, the fraud charged in this case, is not established by the evidence."

Holden vs. Hardy, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1898, 169 U. S. 366, BROWN, J. In this case the 8-hour labor law (1896) of Utah was attacked on the ground that it was a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in that it deprived the employers and employees of the right to make contracts, and on other grounds. The State courts upheld the statute and the Supreme Court declined to in

necessary; that restrictions which had formerly been laid upon the conduct of individuals or classes had proved detrimental to their interests; and other classes of persons, particularly those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy employments, have been found to be in need of additional protection: but this power of change is limited by the fundamental principles laid down in the Constitution, to which each member of the Union is bound to accede as a condition of its admission as a State."

The general question of the laws of the former sovereignty and the continuance of the system of jurisprudence in annexed territory, was referred to in the opinion, after discussing numerous cases, on pp. 388-389, as follows:

"The same subject was also elaborately discussed by Mr. Justice Matthews in delivering the opinion of this court in Hurtado vs. California, 110 U. S. 516, 530:

they cannot any longer be enforced, and in such case they become unenforceable under the new order of things. These

reason to doubt the soundness of these views. In the future growth of the nation, as heretofore, it is not impossible that Congress may see fit to annex territories whose

law. One of the considerations moving to such annexation might be the very fact that the territory so annexed should enter the Union with its traditions, laws and systems of administration unchanged. It would be a narrow construction of the Constitution to require them to abandon these, or to substitute for a system, which represented the growth of generations of inhabitants, a jurisprudence with which they had had no previous acquaintance or sympathy.

'This flexibility and capacity for growth and adaptation is the peculiar boast and excellence of the common law. . . . The Constitution of the United States was ordained, it is true, by descendants jurisprudence is that of the civil of Englishmen, who inherited the traditions of English law and history; but it was made for an undefined and expanding future, and for a people gathered and to be gathered from many nations and of many tongues. And while we take just pride in the principles and institutions of common law, we are not to forget that in lands where other systems of jurisprudence prevail, the ideas and processes of civil justice are also not unknown. Due process of law, in spite of the absolutism of continental governments, is not alien to that Code which survived the Roman Empire as the foundation of modern civilization in Europe, and which has given us that fundamental maxim of distributive justice-suum cuique tribuere. There is nothing in Magna Charta, rightly construed as a broad charter of public right and law, which ought to exclude the best ideas of all systems and of every age; and as it was the characteristic principle of the common law to draw its inspiration from every fountain of justice, we are not to assume that the sources of its supply have been exhausted. On the contrary, we should expect that the new and various experiences of our own situation and system will mould and shape it into new and not less useful forms.' We have seen no

"We do not wish, however, to be understood as holding that this power is unlimited. While the people of each State may doubtless adopt such systems of laws as best conform to their own traditions and customs, the people of the entire country have laid down in the Constitution of the United States certain fundamental principles to which each member of the Union is bound to accede as a condition of its admission as a State. Thus, the United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republicin form of government, and the tenth section of the first article contains certain other specified limitations upon the power of the several States, the object of which was to secure to Congress paramount authority with respect to matters of universal concern. In addition, the Fourteenth Amend

4 For note 4 see p. 166.

questions were discussed at great length in Congress after the annexation of Mexican territory under the treaty of 1848. ment contains a sweeping provi- | Cal., 1866, 4 Sawyer 597, Fed. Cas. sion forbidding the States from 5832, FIELD, J. abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and denying them the benfit of due process or equal protection of the laws.'"

For effect of former laws of Texas and effect of laws of United States in Texas, see

Oakey vs. Bennett, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 11 How. 33, MCLEAN, J.

Calkin vs. Cocke, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1852, 14 How. 227, NELSON, J.

Other cases involving the question of the continuance of local laws in conquered and ceded territory and the effect of change of sovereignty thereon are:

Higueras vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1864, 5 Wall. 827, CLIFFORD, J.

Insular Cases, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1901, 182 U. S. See INSULAR CASES APPENDIX at end of volume I.

Mitchel vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1835, 9 Peters, 711, BALD| WIN, J.

New Orleans vs. Armas, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1835, 9 Peters, 224, MARSHALL, Ch. J.

New Orleans vs. Steamship Co., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1874, 20 Wallace, 387, SWAYne, J.

New Orleans vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1836, 10 Peters, 662,

Alexander vs. Roulet, U. S. Sup. | MCLEAN, J.
Ct. 1871, 13 Wall. 386, DAVIS, J.
Chicago Ry. Co. vs. McGlinn,
U. S. Sup. Ct. 1885, 114 U. S. 542,
FIELD, J.

Chouteau vs. Eckhart, U. S. Sup.
Ct. 1844, 2 How. 344, CATRON, J.
Clark vs. Braden, same as Doe
vs. Braden, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1853, 16
How. 635, TANEY, Ch. J.

Cross vs. Harrison, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1853, 16 How. 164, WAYNE, J. Davis vs. Police Jury, etc., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 9 How. 280, WAYNE, J.

Delassus vs. United States, U. S. Supreme Ct. 1835, 9 Pet. 117, MARSHALL, Ch. J.

Doe vs. Braden, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1853, 16 How. 635, TANEY, CH. J. Foster vs. Neilson, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1829, 2 Pet. 253, MARSHALL, Ch. J. Garcia vs. Lee, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1838, 12 Pet. 511, TANEY, Ch. J.

Grisar vs. McDowell, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1867, 6 Wall. 363, FIELD, J., affirming same case, U. S. Cir. Ct.

Ortiz, Ex parte, Porto Rico Habeas Corpus case, U. S. Cir. Ct. Minn. 1900, 100 Fed. Rep. 955, LоCHRAN, J.

Permoli vs. Municipality, etc., U. S. Sup. Ct. 1845, 3 How. 589, CATRON, J.

Pollard vs. Hagan, U. S. Sup. Ct, 1845, 3 How. 212, MCKINLEY, J.

Pollard's Heirs vs. Kibbe, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1840, 14 Pet. 353, THOMPSON, J.

Soulard vs. United States, and cited as Smith vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1830, 4 Peters, 511, MARSHALL, CH. J.; U. S. Sup. Ct. 1836, 10 Peters, 100, BALDWIN, J.; 10 Peters 326, BALDWIN, J.

Strother vs. Lucas, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1832, 6 Pet. 763, THOMPSON, J.

United States VS. Arredondo, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1832, 6 Pet. 691, BALDWIN, J.

United States vs. Castillero, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1862, 2 Black, 1 p. 320, CLIFFORD, J.

By the laws of Mexico slavery was prohibited, and in framing the laws establishing territorial governments of New Mexico and other portions of the acquired territory the proslavery element in Congress endeavored to legislate slavery into the territories while the anti-slavery element endeavored to exclude it. Owing to the prohibition of slavery under Mexican law the anti-slavery element maintained that slavery would be illegal until actually permitted by some act of Congress which expressly repealed, or superseded, the laws of Mexico as they existed at the time of the cession."

§ 3956. The effect on the allegiance of the inhabitants and their personal and political rights.-Personal rights and citizenship have a somewhat different standing in court than rights affecting property which will be separately considered in the following sections. The latter class of rights may become so vested that they cannot, under rules of equity, justice and international law, be disturbed, while personal rights where no property interests are involved remain wholly under governmental control, except so far as they are protected by constitutional guarantees.1

In cases of cession of territory the rights and liberties of the inhabitants are often determined by provisions of the

United States vs. King & Coxe, Campbell vs. Hall, Kings Bench, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1845, 3 How. 773; 15 Geo. III, Cowper 204, Lord and 1849, 7 How. 833, TANEY, Ch. J. MANSFIELD. United States vs. Percheman, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1833, 7 Pet. 51, MARSHALL, CH. J.

United States vs. Repentigny, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1866, 5 Wall. 211, NELSON, J.

United States vs. Reynes, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1850, 9 How. 127, DANIEL, J.

A few English cases which were cited in the arguments and opinions of the Insular Cases are also referred to as follows:

Blankard vs. Galdy, King and Queens Bench, 5 William and Mary, 4 Mod. 222, PER CURIAM.

Calvin's Case, Court Exch. Chamber, 6 James I, 4 Coke 1.

The Fama, High Court of Admiralty, 1804, 5 Robinson, 106, SIR W. SCOTT.

Penn vs. Lord Baltimore, High Ct. of Chancery, 1750, 1 Vesey Sen. 445, HARDWICKE, LD. CHAN.

4 In re Sah Quah, The Alaska Slavery case, U. S. Dist. Ct., Alaska, 1886, 31 Fed. Rep. 327, DAWSON, J. 5 See chap. II, vol. I of Rhodes' History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850, although the records of Congress for that period are the best authority on the subject.

$3956.

1 See note to §10, p. 14, ante. For authorities on this subject con

« AnteriorContinuar »