MISSISSIPPI. 



523 



for such purpose, it is prepared to make the necessary 

 ppropriati 



Kutolif.l 1'nrtlnT, Thut this Hi. use present to the 

 pcopl. M>pi the subject of providing for tho 



:.ii and liberal con- 

 vnirj county ta will insure to his 

 i I children that provision lor life which hit 

 Ins devotion to his State, his self- 

 i grout merits, and ^reat misfortunes, so 

 und, and which, for Mississippi now 

 ;I1 show her and her sons alike degenerate, 

 i in January, 1867, tho Consti- 

 : incnt was unanimously rejected. 

 t!u; imthority of an act at tho first ses- 

 sion of the I.i-,'i-l:iture, a bureau has been or- 

 perfection and preservation of 

 la of tho Mississippi troops. No one 

 of tho Southern States more reluctantly con- 

 sented to the admissibility of negro testimony 

 -ippi. But at a trial in Atala county, 

 in October, or a white for the homicide of a 

 . tho witnesses were negroes alone, and 

 not only were objections made that their testi- 

 mony was incompetent, hut this being over- 

 ruled, tho jury were urged to disregard it as 

 being unworthy of belief. But the jury con- 

 victed tho man of manslaughter, and the Cir- 

 cuit Judge, J. A. P. Campbell, elected by the 

 people, in passing sentence upon him, approved 

 of the verdict, and of the admissibility of such 

 tL'-^imony as a basis of conviction. 



A cotton-mill operating 2,100 wool spindles, 

 r.nd 4,032 cotton spindles, 96 looms, etc., calcn- 

 !:iio.l to employ 200 hands, and make 5,000 yards 

 of cloth per day, was erected in Copiah County 

 during the year. A now town has sprung up 

 arouml it. Churches, both Catholic and Prot- 

 estant are in progress of construction, the latter 

 comprising Baptists and Methodists, while 

 tho company are making preparations for the 

 building of school-houses and a female college. 



A case involving the question of the effect of 

 secession upon the existence of the State, came 

 before the Iligh Court of Errors and Appeals, 

 from tho decision of which the following extract 

 is taken : 



It was never claimed or insisted that the Govern- 

 ment of Mississippi was usurped or not rightful. No 

 other power ever assumed the right to administer 

 the powers of government within tier limits, or dis- 

 puted her right to exercise those powers, as she bad 

 previously done in subordination only to the Con- 

 stitution of the United States, as the supreme law of 

 the land. Her existence as a State was never the 

 subject of controversy. But her relation to the other 

 States of the Union, her right to dissolve that relation 

 and form a new compact with other States, was the 

 disputed question. 



If. then, her ordinance of secession was void, this 

 could no more affect her government or her sover- 

 eignty as a State in the Union, than if it had never 

 existed. If a nullity, it surely in law could not amount 

 to political suicide. If she had ordained her own 

 dissolution, instead of a dissolution of her external 

 ivhitinns to the Government of the United States, 

 there would have been more plausibility in the idea 

 that the Government had been annihilated. But in 

 the coutiuued existence of all the powers of govern- 

 ment over her own citizens, and in her own limits 

 IKT legistatire, executive, and Judicial departments, 

 \\ith all other civil officers in the daily discharge of 

 their duties and functions how, or when did she 



lose her existence as a State? Or why should her 

 legislative acts, not in contravention of the Constitu- 

 tion of the United States, or of bf r own Constitution, 

 be invalid? The Government of the United States 

 not only never claimed the right to deprive her of 

 these powers, but throughout the struggle professed 

 to labor for the preservation and protection of her 

 people, as a State, in the old Union, and thereby 

 prevent the disruption of that Union. 



If Mississippi was not a government rightfully, and 

 in fact, who else sought or claimed, or possessed the 

 powers of government, which were in fact regularly 

 administered over her people ? Can it be that without 

 even a claimant to dispute her right, her legislative 

 acts, not forbidden by any organic law, are void for 

 want of governmental power to pass them ; and this 

 because of a void ordinance passed by the people in 

 Convention ? Because the Government of the United 

 States detained Mississippi in the Union by coercion 

 of arms, to prevent its own dissolution, it does not 

 follow that Mississippi thereby became extinct as a 

 State, and the Union dissolved. Nor can it be true 

 that the old Union was preserved, and yet that eleven 

 States have been destroyed in the effort ! 



In legal effect, the character of Mississippi as a 

 State in the Union, was therefore established, and 

 not destroyed by the events of the war, and the act 

 in question remains unaffected by its political results. 



And this would be the result, even if Mississippi 

 had been a foreign State. The rules of international 

 law already stated in the cases above cited, show 

 that even when the territory of a State or nation, in 

 whole or in part, is conquered by, or ceded to ? or 

 united by treaty with another nation, the municipal 

 laws of the conquered, ceded or united territory or 

 nation, remain in full force until legally changed by 

 the legislative power of the acquiring nation, agree- 

 ably to its elementary law and constitution. Gar- 

 diner's Institutes, p. 53, 13. Sedgewick on Statu- 

 tory law, p. 84, ana cases cited. 



So in 12th Peters K., p. 436, the Supreme Court of 

 the United States say, that by the law of nations tho 

 municipal laws of a ceded or conquered country, 

 existing at the time of cession or conquest, continue 

 in force until altered by the new sovereign. 



But "the belligerent right of the United States 

 Government growing out of the suppression of the 

 rebellion, does not confer on it the right of conquest 

 after the suppression. No nation can make a con- 

 quest of its own territory. It acquires no new title, 

 but only regains the possession of which it was tem- 

 porarily deprived." J. Sprague in the Amy War- 

 wick, U. S. Dist. Ct. for Mass. 24 Law K. p. 835. 



The ordinance of the Convention of August, 1S65, 

 was not necessary to give validity to the act in ques- 

 tion. Nor can it be inferred from their action, taken 

 in connection with their debates on that subject, that 

 such was their opinion. The ordinance appears to 

 have been passed out of abundant caution, lest the 

 dogma assumed by the President in his proclamation 

 appointing a Provisional Governor that the State 

 had become deprived of civil government might be 

 recognized, and the acts of the State Government 

 declared void. 



We think it results from tho foregoing views ne- 

 cessarily 



1. That tho provision in the Constitution of the 

 United States, as well as the State of Mississippi, 

 requiring members of the Legislature to take an oath 

 to support the Constitution of the United States, is 

 merely directory : and the failure to take such an 

 outh will not invalidate their action. 



2. That all acts passed by the Legislature of Mis- 

 sissippi during the war, not inconsistent with her 

 organic law, were valid, and remained so afterwards, 

 until altered or repealed by her authority ; with the 

 exception that, upon the "return of neace, all such 

 acts as were inconsistent with the Constitution of 

 the United States, or the laws passed in pursuance 

 thereof, and then existing, were thereby annulled. 



