IN COURT.

The language of the Thirteenth Amendment is so comprehensive and
absolute that vital questions of law are not likely at any time to
arise under it. The Article is in two parts. _First_, "Neither
slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
_Second_, Congres shall have power to enforce this Article by
appropriate legislation." By this Amendment the relation between
the National and State Governments, respecting the question of
Human Liberty, was radically changed. Before its adoption slavery
could be established or abolished in any State at the will of the
majority. The National prohibition now extended everywhere that
the flag floated; freedom of the person became thenceforth a matter
of National concern. The power of the State was subordinated to
the continuing and supreme authority of the Nation.

The Supreme Court has had occasion in a few cases only to deal with
the Thirteenth Amendment, and in those cases the questions raised
did not touch the validity or scope of the Article. In the case
of _White_ v. _Hart_, reported in 13 _Wallace_, the Court held that
a note given for slaves at a time prior to emancipation was a valid
contract and could be enforced. This judgment was rendered in the
face of the fact that the Reconstructed Constitution of the State
of Georgia, where the contract was made, contained a provision that
no Court should have or take "jurisdiction in any case of debt the
consideration of which was a slave or the hire thereof." The Court
held that the provision in the Georgia Constitution was invalid as
to all agreements made prior to its adoption, upon the ground that
it was a violation of the Constitution of the United States which
provides that no State shall make any law "impairing the obligation
of contracts." In the case of _Osborne_ v. _Nicholson_, 13 _Wallace_,
where the cause of action was a note given for a slave in Arkansas,
March 20, 1861, the Court held that the Thirteenth Amendment did
not constitute a bar to the claim. These cases serve to show the
narrow and restricted character of the issues made under the Article
--issues long since passed by the limitation of time.

One point in the adoption of the Amendment caused much speculation
at the time, not unaccompanied with anxiety. The whole number of
States wa