Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

by State law. Hauenstein v. Lynham, 100 U. S., 483, 488.

A statute of Maryland limited the right of aliens to hold lands. The treaty of amity and commerce with France of 1778 (8 Stats. at L., 13, Art. 11) enabled the subjects of France to purchase and hold lands in the United States. The State law is inoperative. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat., 259.

A treaty is a law of the land, of which all courts, State and National, must take judicial notice. Under an extradition treaty, a prisoner, given up by another nation as a fugitive charged with murder, can not be placed on trial for any other offense. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S., 407.

The United States made a treaty with an Indian tribe in North Carolina. A subsequent dispute as to boundary was settled by another treaty. This was binding on the State and on private rights; and grants of land by the State within the Indian territory were held void, though the fee was in the State subject to Indian right of occupancy. Lattimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet., 4.

The law of Georgia, which subjected to punishment all white persons residing within the limit of the Cherokee nation, authorized their arrest and removal therefrom and trial in the State courts, is held unconstitutional because repugnant to treaties made with the Cherokees. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515.

By treaty of Nov. 3, 1762, France ceded to Spain the

province of Louisiana. A grant of land made after that date was void, unless ratified by Spain. Long continued possession might justify presumption of such ratification. United States v. D’Auterive, 10 How., 609; Same v. Pillerin, 13 How., 9; Same v. Rillieux, 14 How., 189; Same v. Gusman, 14 How., 193; Same v. Ducros, 15 How., 38.

ARTICLE VII.

“The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.”

"Done in convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty. seven, and of the independence of the United States of America, the twelfth. In Witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names. (Signed by)

"Go. Washington,
"Presidt. and Deputy from Virginia,"

and by thirty-nine delegates.

AMENDMENTS.

In addition to, and amendment of, the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress and ratified by the legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the Fifth Article of the original Constitution.

The first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution contain no restrictions on the powers of States, but were intended to operate solely on the Federal government. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet., 213; Livingston v. Moore, 7 Pet., 469; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How., 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall., 321; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall., 532; United States v. Cruiksbank, 92 U. S., 542, 552; Spies v. Illi. nois, 123 U. S., 131; In re Sawyer, 124 U. S., 200, 219; Eilenbecker v. Dist. Court, 134 U. S., 31; Davis v. Texas, 139 U. S., 651; Thorington v. Montgomery, 147 U. S., 490; Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S., 535; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S., 642; Iowa C. R. Co. v. Iowa, 160 U. S., 389; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S., 226; Missouri v. Lewis, 101 U. S., 22.

ARTICLE I.

FREEDOM OF RELIGI

SPEE

PRESS

AND RIGHT OF

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND RIGHT OF

PETITION.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The establishment of religion.—The religious establishment of England was adopted in the Colony of Virginia, and by it the freehold of church lands was in the parson. The act of the legislature of 1776 confirmed to the church its right to these lands. Subsequent statutes which sought to divert the rights as confirmed and vest them in a corporation held unconstitutional. The statute of Virginia confirming the titles to church lands was not an infringement of any rights secured under the Constitution. Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43.

The common law of England so far as it respects the erection of churches of the Episcopal persuasion and the corporate capacity of the parson to take in succession was recognized in the province of New Hampshire prior to the revolution. Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292. A grant to the church vested the fee in the parson. Id.

A statute of the United States, for the territory of Utah, provided that no bigamist, polygamist or any person cohabiting with more than one woman, etc., should be entitled to vote. This held valid. Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S., 15.

The above clause, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” does not make void an act of a territory excluding from offices of trust and honor those who disobey the law in practicing polygamy. Davies v. Beason, 133 U. S., 333.

The pretense of religious belief can not deprive Congress of the power to prohibit polygamy and all other like offenses in a territory. Congress may provide for the winding up of a so-called religious corporation incorporated by territorial acts. It possesses all the chancery powers necessary to the proper superintendence and direction of any gift to a charitable use. Mormon Church v. U. S., 136 U. S., 1.

A party's religious belief does not shield him for committing acts which violate the laws of the land. He can not plead his faith to justify polygamy. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145; Cannon v. United States, 116 U. S., 55; Murphy v. Ramsay, 114 U. S., 15.

The Constitution makes no provision for protecting the citizens of the respective States in their religious liberties; this is left to the State Constitutions and laws; nor is there any prohibition, imposed on the States by the Federal Constitution in this respect. Permoli v. First Municipality, 3 How., 589.

A devise upon a trust to establish and maintain a college for the education of indigent or poor boys is a charitable trust, although the will of the testator excludes all ecclesiastics, missionaries, and ministers of the gospel, of all sects, from any trust or duty concerning the college or from entry into it even as visitors. Vidal v. Girard's Executors, 2 How., 127.

« AnteriorContinuar »