the enacting clause, and those wne set up any such exception must establish it as being within the words as well as within the reason thereof. U. S. vs. Dickson, 15 Pet., 141.
But the clause or exception saving the rights of individuals is not repugnant to the body of the act or section. The convention in the body of the preamble, declare that no individual could acquire any rights under the confederacy, and then saves all their rights derived from any other source.
The question is asked, cannot a state by virtue of its reserved power legally pass laws, create courts, etc., although it has violated its compact with the United States by seceding therefrom? Could Arkansas, after the 6th of May, 1861, exercise that kind of sovereignty and have a civil government which was legal and whose acts would be binding?
The question as to whether she could do so may be a judicial one; but the question as to whether she did exercise soverignty and establish a civil government, is a political one, as decided in the Dorr and Borden cases, and the decision of the political department is binding on the courts.
Mr. Chief Justice WALKER delivered the opinion of the court.
Jacob Hawkins, the plaintiff in error as well as in the court below, brought his action of debt, in the Pulaski circuit court, against Lemuel M. Filkins, upon a promissory note for the sum of four hundred and fifty dollars. The declaration was filed, and the writ made returnable to the May term of said court, 1861. The writ was duly executed, and at the return term, the defendant appeared and craved oyer of the writing declared upon, which was granted by filing the original note. Without further proceedings at that term, the case was continued until the September term, 1861, of said court. At which term the parties appeared, and no further defence being offered, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for his debt, and costs of suit.
On the 24th day of July, 1865, execution was issued upon this judgment, by the clerk of the Pulaski circuit court, and there
