Mullen vs. Hodge, 5 Texas, 44; Cass vs. Dillon, 2 Ohio, 607; Commonwealth vs. Chopman, 13 Metcalf, 68-71; State vs. Raywood, 2 Stewart, 360; and Bishop on Marriage and Divorce, secs. 19 et seq., and authorities cited; Cross vs. Harrison, 16 How., 181; Spence's Equitable Jurisprudence of the Court of Chancery, vol. 1, p. 2, 3, 10, 105.
And in this construction of the law, the past history of civilized nations fully bears us out. In addition to what may be found in the foregoing references, we respectfully call attention to the following additional authorities: Campbell's Lives of Chief Justiees of England, vol. 1, p. 80; [vitae Roger Le Brabacond,] Ib. vitae Oliver St. John, 464-6-7-70, etc.; Jefferson's Works, vol. 7, p. 611-612; Hamilton's Works, vol. 7, pages 844-5; 8 Wheaton, 489; 2 Gallison, 501.
In another view, Arkansas is at least entitled to belligerent rights, always accorded by the laws of war of civilized nations, under the law of nations, to a conquered country, if she is so considered. Hughes vs. Lamy et al., Amer. Law Reg., Jan. No. 1866, p. 148; 2 Blacks. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep, 635; Lawrence Wheat. 249, 250, note; ib. 605: Hildreth vs. McIntyre, 1 J. J. Marsh., 205.
That the state of Arkansas has never ceased to exist, and that, as to her own citizens and her internal affairs, she has always been sovereign, and independent; or, in other words, that the state of Arkansas never did surrender her sovereignty as to these matters, and that by her abortive attempt to secede from the United States, she did not forfeit any of these rights, or any other rights which she had not previously surrendered to the United States—Martin vs. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 304; [3d Cond. Rep., 473;] McCulloch vs. State of Maryland, 4 Wheaton, 316; [4 Cond. 466.]
But finally, there is an insuperable objection to the construction sought to be put upon the preamble of the present constitution, by the attorney for the defendant in error, namely—that such a construction would be the violation of the constitution
