Scott v. Jones Lessee of Detroit Young Men's Society/Dissent McLean

by John McLean

United States Supreme Court

46 U.S. 343

Scott  v.  Jones Lessee of Detroit Young Men's Society

Mr. Justice McLEAN.

I think there is jurisdiction in this case. The Detroit Young Men's Society, in their corporate capacity, brought an action of ejectment against Scott and Boland to recover possession of the lot in question.

The deed under which the lessors of the plaintiff claimed was dated the 1st July, 1836, and was signed by three judges of the Territory of Michigan. In making the conveyance, the judges acted under a law of Congress of the 21st April, 1806. As regards this question, it is not important to examine the execution of this trust.

On the trial it was proved 'that a legislature of the State of Michigan, duly elected and returned, was organized and duly qualified under the constitution of the State of Michigan on the 3d November, 1835; and that Stevens T. Mason, having been duly elected and returned, was on the same day qualified as governor, &c. That the act entitled 'An act to incorporate the members of the Detroit Young Men's Society' was approved 26th March, 1836.'

It was proved; by reputation, that John S. Horner purported to act as territorial governor of Michigan until some time in the year 1836, and that George Morell and Ross Wilkins acted as judges until June of that year. That a session of the territorial court was held on the first Monday of January, 1837.

The State of Michigan was admitted into the Union by the act of the 26th January, 1837.

On the trial, the counsel moved the court to instruct the jury, that the act 'to incorporate the members of the Detroit Young Men's Society' was not of binding force, 'unless the jury should find that the State government of the State of Michigan was, at the time of the passing and approval of said act, established, and in full and legal force and operation.'

The twenty-fifth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 provides, 'that a final judgment or decree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question' 'the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of such their validity,' may be re examined in this court by a writ of error.

This act of incorporation was given in evidence, as a part of the plaintiff's title; and on the validity of the act his right to a recovery depended. The deed having been made to the lessors of the plaintiff as corporators, they could recover only in that capacity. The validity of this statute was questioned, as appears from the record, on the ground that it was passed before the State was admitted into the Union; and the court held that the statute was valid. By the constitution, Congress has power to admit into the Union 'new States.' The time of admission is a question of law, and not a political question. At the present term we have had occasion to decide the date of the admission into the Union of the States of Florida and Iowa.

The above facts present the very case provided by the statute for the exercise of jurisdiction by this court. A right was set up under the statute of a State, and that statute was alleged to be repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States; and the decision of the State court was in favor of the validity of such statute. No case, it would seem, could arise, more completely within the letter and spirit of the twenty-fifth section.

It is said that the act upon its face does not purport to be repugnant to the constitution or laws of the United States. If this be admitted, it by no means follows that the act is constitutional. Whether constitutional or not must be determined by the effect of the act. But in my judgment this act is repugnant to the constitution and laws of the Union.

Michigan was an organized Territory of the United States. Its governor, judges, and all other territorial officers, were in the discharge of their various functions. The sovereignty of the Union extended to it. Under these circumstances, the people of Michigan assembled by delegates in convention, and adopted a constitution, and under it elected members of both branches of their legislature, governor, and judges, and organized the State government. No serious objection need be made, in my judgment, to the assemblage of the people in convention to form a constitution, although it is the more regular and customary mode to proceed under the sanction of an act of Congress. But until the State shall be admitted into the Union by act of Congress, the territorial government remains unimpaired.

No act of the people of a Territory, without the sanction of Congress, can change the territorial into a State government. The constitution requires the assent of Congress for the admission of a State into the Union; and 'the United States guaranty to every State in the Union a republican form of government.' Hence the necessity, in admitting a State, for Congress to examine its constitution.

The act 'to incorporate the members of the Detroit Young Men's Society,' was the exercise of sovereign power,-a power totally repugnant to the sovereignty of the Union, in its territorial form. Until the 26th of January, 1837, Michigan was not admitted into the Union and recognized as a State. Whatever effect this admission may have, by way of relation, on the exercise of the political powers of the State prior to that time, is not now a question. The question of jurisdiction relates to the time the act was passed, and its validity.

This act of incorporation was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, under which the territorial government was organized. It was repugnant to the laws of Congress which formed that organization. It was an exercise of sovereignty incompatible with the sovereignty of the Union, in all its legal forms. And this act was declared by the Supreme Court of Michigan to be valid. I cannot conceive of a clearer case for jurisdiction.

In Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet., 540, the governor, in the exercise of a supposed power in the State, directed a fugitive from justice, claimed by the Canadian government, to be delivered up; and the Supreme Court of that State, having brought the accused before it by a habeas corpus, remanded him to custody. This court, under the twenty-fifth section, took jurisdiction of the case, on the ground, in the language of the chief justice, 'that the exercise of the power in question by the States is totally contradictory and repugnant to the power granted to the United States.' And again he says,-'All the powers which relate to our foreign intercourse are confided to the general government.' 'If there was no prohibition to the States, yet the exercise of such a power on their part is inconsistent with the power upon the same subject conferred on the United States.'

Now, in the case of Holmes, there was no power to surrender the fugitive in the federal government, as such power was not conferred by the laws of nations, but must be given by a treaty, or by reciprocal legislation. Still, as the foreign intercourse was vested in the general government, no part of it could be exercised by the States without conflicting with the federal power. Now the conflict of power, in the case under consideration, is clear and direct. The two sovereignties of the State and the territorial government cannot exist at the same time within the same limits. The territorial government exists in full vigor until it is abolished by the admission of the State. There was, then, a direct and irreconcilable repugnance in the exercise of the sovereign power by the State, so long as the federal authority was exercised in the Territory.

Mr. Justice WAYNE concurred, that this court had not jurisdiction in this case, but did not assent to any conclusions in the opinion on the merits in this controversy involving the political relations of Michigan with the United States before Michigan was admitted into the Union.

Mr. Justice NELSON concurred with the opinion of Mr. Justice McLean.