JLeciql polices.
Divorce Notice i.
IN the Court of Common Vlens of Hlk CO..
Va.. No. 7. January term, 1SU7. Mnry
Moniiran. by liei-next friend,
vs. Michael .Monizan.
The undersigned, appointed 1y the said
Court, to take I ot iinony in Hie above li
vorco case, hereby rivcs notice to those in.
tercstod, tlmt ho will attend at Hie liouscof
Mrs. i:ii7.nbcth Winslnw, in lbnojett, 121k
oomitv. IV. on Tuesday, (lie 2nd day of
.July next, for tho performance ofsai'1 duty.
jun'27'67 to. Commissioner.
IN the Court of Common l'lcns of I21k co.,
ln No. 15, November term. lbt- j03
T. Hnnonl.l vs. N.mcy M. llatiotiM.
The undersigned, appointed by tho uni.l
rourt, totnke testimony " Ihn ahovo Di
vorce case, hereby uives nonce lo those in
tercstcd, tlmt he ill atlci. I to the perfor.
mnneeofsi.ildu.y, ut Oysters Untcl in
)ox township, 121k county, Fa., on Monday,
4he -t'th lfl V of .Inly next.
JOHN C. McA ..LISTER,
jup2',-tc. Commissioner.
1" "N the Court of Common Vlensnf Elk co.,
Tiv., No. 14. November term, IHtlti.
iliniot McCulloiiirli, by her next frietul,
Jacob Fields, vs. Julius MeCnllough.
Thctinderoijrncd, Appointed by the paid
Court to take testimony in the nbovo
vorce case, hereby I'ivos notice to those in
terested, that he will attend to the perfor
manceofsaid duty, nt Oyster's Hotel, in
Fox township, F Ik county, Fa., ou Monday,
.the 2'Jth dav of July next.
"JOHN C. McCALMSTER,
jun27'o7ti Commissioner.
MAKY MON ID AN, " In the Court of
By hernejrt friend I Common Fleas of
Elk co. No. 7,
I January terni,i7.
MICHAEL MON 10 AN, J Subn. iu Divorce
To Michael Monigsin : Take notice that
you are required to appear at tho terra of
aid Court to be held at Kidgway on the
first Monday of August next, to answer the
complaint of the libelant in this case.
Sherill 'a Office, 1 J. A. MALONE,
Ridgway, July 5,'C7 Sheriff.
BegUtor'i Notices.
T0TICE is hereby given that J. W.
ISrown nnd Charles Winslow, admin
istrators of the estate of I2ben V.'inslow. de
ceased have tiled their accounts in my office,
und that liie samo will lie presented nt t lie
next term of the Orphan's Court for eentir.
niation. (!EO. A. UATIi I'.UX,
jur.l7'C7te. Kcgialcr.
"VTOT1C12 is hereby given that iliotnas
SchlultenhotVor and Francis Sclilu t
tetihotTer, exoeuiora of the last will and
testament of VY'diVan; ScliUittcnhofVtr de
ceased, have l':h'd tlieir accounts in my of.
lice, and that the same will be presented at
the next term of Hie Orphan'sfnuit for
confirmation. tiiX". A. 11 AT Illll'N,
j uly 11 lifti" Register.
Lissolutiot o Partnership.
milE" FAllTNKUi-'lIll' heretofore exist
between the undersigned has been this
day dissolved hy mutual consent. All per
sons having unsettled accounts with said
firm are re.jue.-ted to iiiaV:e itmmdialc pay
inent to Short & Wilo.i:;, iu whose hands
the books arc left for colled ion.
joiin Dor.rit.
0. F.LANCHAKD.
junc 25, IN!" julllOtpd.
TJOTIC12 OF DISSOLUTION. THE
partnership heretofore existing be.
tttcen the undersigned, under the firm
name of Durdwell & Messenger, is this day
dissolved by mutual consent. The books
and accoiinis of the Into firm remain in the
hauda of (J. C. Mcsscnster for settlement.
j, s. f.o;uvi:ll,
U. 0. MESSENGER.
June 3d, lPOT.llt.
TTTM. M. flNC.EULY AND JOSEPH
KMIKIW'IT.ICK have tit's day with
drawn from the .ii ri of .Short, Ha'lit Co.
The undersigned remaining co partners
wl.l continuo the V iahiii-r lutsin". tinder
the old Una na:;:-.-. Sii'. :'!', MALI. .V CO.
S. rWIOET.
JN'). :. HALL,
L. YOLI.MI2II.
May 2 i, Y.7 tf. J. K. 1'. HALL.
' slT'l'LK "tTpT
npilK HUM t)F FoilliV.'ELL it M1C8-
8E.CiElt having been this day dis
solved, all persons indebted to said linn are
requested lo la. ike immediato settlement
with the undersigued, in whose hands the
books ure left for that purpose.
U. 0. MESSENGER.
June 3d, 18i;7-tf.
I
1ST OF CAUSES SFP
i now u i'r i rial ai auiisi .e.sioiis, i ooi ,
tockdalo . llowocr v:. Mcsstnga' i. llawlo
Same vs G. D. Mcsseii rer.
F A Leash vs Jos' ph Vi'iinlfoMer.
E O Clemeiit i vs L Arner et nl
Adam Keiumercr vs M'Cuuley ct. al.
James iV 12rovu vs II Woodward
S S May vs J Elliott
I'hines' administrators vs J N Breedin ct al
Joseph YVilhelm vs James Phelvy
Alfred Coxe et al vs Englaud liiown
J C Chnpin's heirs vs iiryaut Euwer
John Tudor vs 11 Woodward et al
Aiuliew Erehm vs Eeii.inger Coal 4 Ironco
T Jackson et al vs ij nniiurigui
Charles 1M1 vs James Wurner ct al
T)Y VIRTUE Ob' SUNDHY wrils
I ) ot Yvwlitioni Exponas, issued
out of tho Court of Common l'leas of
Hlk county, and to me directed, there
will bo exposed to l'UH LIC SALE at
the Couit House in llid-way, on Mon.
day, tlm h dnj of Amjunt m:xt, the
followit)!! described Heal Estate, to wit :
All that certain lot or pi ee of ground
..'.....in iii itiohorouMi of St. Marv's. eouiii v
of Elk, and Statu of Pennsylvania, boundeil
and described as fallows Ueginning at n
liost ou Hie suitlli uric ot line ot me run a.
& Eric railroad thence toulli Si" 30' eimt
10S feet 7 inches lo a post on Wcis & Ei u
ner's line, thence along mid lino north Co0
ir,'iiiii r, t'..i.i M inches lo a nost. thence
north 37 lit)' west IVi feet and 0 in. lo it
post ou (he south line or I lie raiiroau ulore
Kuid. thenee along said suuih lino of said
, oi,l CO fi ei lo tlio LlauO of Lei'iiiuiU'J
a ..... - - . t
containing S.',7o square ieet, cxelusivo ot
(lie road lo tiie lailroaa Ucpoi. upon wuicu
is erecleil one two story building wiih stone
biiseineiit . caloiiliitU'l lor a sun eiiouse one
,,.... in Imlf lui i 1.1 1 ii ir uilhslotio base-
meiil occupied us u d lling house, with
stone foundation for another house M-itcd
and taken iu execution and to be sol I as the
properly of Juhn llauli lit the suit of Siegcl
& Seoll. JAS. A. -VI VI.UAC, M1C1IU.
-7i)A! CUKE AND FI HI2-CLA V !
y Allot' superioi ipialiiy, for sale by tl.o
Tanncrdale Coal Company,
M. .ilury f, r.lH. i.ciiiny, l a.
J8Q" (Jrdci by inail pruniptlj ittend
cd to. sepAlO S-tl
ii i , m
WW
JOIINO. HALL, Proprietor.
JOILXr. MOORE, Publisher.
VETO CF THE KECOKSTBTJCTION BILL.
To the Hovae nRrjn-cscntotivcs of the
Unhid Slates :
I return herewith tho bill entitled
"An net supplementary to an act cn.
titled an net to provide for the more
eflicientgovemnicntof tho rubel States,"
passed on the 2d day of March, 18G7,
and tho net mipplemontary thereto,
passed on the 255d of March, 1SC7, and
will state, as briefly as possible, gomo of
the reasons which prevent mo from giv
nig it my approval.
This is one of a series of measures
passed by Congress during the last four
months on the subject of reconstruction.
The message it-turning the act ot 2d of
March last states at length my objeo.
tions to the passage ot the measure:
they apply equally well to the bill now
beforo me, aud L am content merely to
reler to them, and to reiterate my con
viction that they are sound aud unan
swerable. There are somo points pecu
liar to this bill which I will proceed at
once to consider.
The first section purports to declare
the true intent and meauing, in some
particular!), of the prior acts upon this
subject. It is declared that tho iutent
of thoio acta was, first, " that the ex
isting governments in the ten rebel
States " were not legal State govern
ments j and seeoud, '" That thereafter
said governments, it continued, were to
be continued subject in all respects to
themilitury commanders of tho respec
tive districts and to the paramount
authority ot Congress. Congress may,
by a declaratory act, fis upon an act
a construction altogether at varience
with its apparent meaning, and from the
time at least when such construction is
fixed, the original act will bo construed
to rnotin exactly what it is stated to mean
by the declaratory statue. J nere win
bo then, Iroin tho time this bill may be.
come a law, no doubt, no question ns to
the relation in nhich the existing gov
ernments iu those bti.U'8, eaiieu in tue
original act the " provisional govern
ments " stand toward the military au
thority. An their relations stood before
the declaratory act, these " govern.
ments, it is true, were made subject
to absolute military authority n many
important respects, but not in all, the
language ot tho act being, " buujcct to
the military authority ot tho united
States as hereinafter preset ibed."
iSy the sixth scotiou ot the original
act tiiese governments weru maae " to
all respocls Eubjcct to tne paramount
authority ol the L mtc l totatcs. xxow.
by this Ueclatory net it appears thai
CougrcHs did not, by the original act,
intend h limit the military authority
to any particulars or ftibjeels therein
" nroscii'jcd." but meant to make it
uuiversal. Thus, over, all these ten
States, this military frovcrnmcnt is now
declared to have uuhimted autuonty.
It is no longer confined to the preser
vation ot the public peace, the aamin
istration ot criminal law, the registra
tion of voters, nnd the superintendence
of elections, but in all respects is assert
ed to be patamount to the existing
civil ooverutucnts. It is inipossiblo to
conceive any state of tocicty more iotol
era n than this, and vet It 13 10 tins
condition that millions of Amcricttu cit
izens are reduced by tho Congress of
tho United States. Over every foot of
the immeu.ie territory occupied by tueso
Amcruau cmzeua the Constitution ot
tho United States theoretically is in full
operation. It bindi all tho people
there, and should protect them ; yet
they are denied every one cf its saeied
guarantees. Of what avail will it be to
any one of these Southern people, when
seized by a file of soldiers, to ask tot
the cause of arrest, or for the production
of the warrant ? Of what avail to ask
for the privilege ot bail when in tuili
tarv eustodv, which knows no such
thinir as bail ? Of what avail to de
mand a trial bv jury, process for wit
nesses. a coov of tho indictment, tho
privilege ot counsel, or the greater pri
vilc-'C the writ of habeas corpus ?
Tho vctoot tho original bill of tho 2d
of March was based ou two distinct
grounds," tho iuterl'eienco of Congress
iu matters strictly appertaining to the
res rved tiowcrs of the States, and the
esUb'.ishii.ci.t of militar tribuuala for
the trial of citizens in time of peat e
Tho ini) artial reader of that message
will understand that alUhat it contaius
with respect to military despotism and
martial law has reference especially to
the fearful power conferred ou tho dis
trict commanders to displace tho crimi
nal couris und assume jurisdiction to trv
and to punish by military boards ; tha't
potentially the suspension of tho hubcas
corpus was martial law and military
despotism. The act uow beforo me not
only declares that the intent was to con
fer buch military authority, but also to
confer uuliuiited militaiy authority over
all tho other courts of tho Stato, and
over all the officers of the State, legisla
tive, executive aud judical.
Not content with the general grant
of power, Congress, iu the second sec.
tiou of this till, fcpccilioally jivco to
RID G WAY, PENXA.,
each military commander tho power to
" suspend or remove from oflico,or frcm
the performance of official duties and the
exercise of official power, nny officer or
person holding or exercising, oi profess
ing to hold or excrciso, any civil or mil.
itary office or duty in such district un
der nny power, election, appointment, or
authority derived from or granted by or
claimed under any so-called State or
the government thereof, or any munici
pal or other division thereof," a power
that hitherto all the departments of the
Federal Government, acting in concert
or separately, have not dared to exer
cise, is here attempted to be conferred
on a subordinate military officer. To
him, as a m'litary officer of the Federal
Government, is given the power, sup
ported by a " sufficient military force,"
to remove every civil othoer of the
State. What next 7 .The district com
mander, who has thus displaced the
civil officer, is authorized to fill the va.
cancy by tbo detail of an officer or sol.
dior of tho army, or by tho appointment
of somo othor person. This military
appoiutce, whether an officer, a soldier,
or some other person, is to perform the
duties ot such orhcer so suspended or
removed. In other words, na officer or
soldier of tho army is thus transformed
into a civil officer.
fie jiay be made a governor, a leg
islator, or a judge. However unfit he
may deem himself for such civil duties
he must obey the order. The officer of
the army must, if detailed, go upon the
supremo bench of the State with tho
samo prompt obedience as if he were
detailed to go on a court. martial. The
soldier, if detailed to act as justice of
the peace, must obey as quickly as f he
were detailed for picket duty. What
is tho character of such a military civil
officer ' This bill declares that he shall
perform the duties ot the civil office to
which he is detailed. It is clear, how
ever, that he docs not loso his position
in the military service. He is still an
officer or soldier of the army, lie is
still subject to the rules and regulations
which govern it, and must yield due
deference, respect aud obedience to
wards his superiors. Tho clear inten
tion cf this section is that, the officer or
soldier detailed to fill a civil office must
execute its duties according to tho laws
of the Stato. If he is appointed a gov'
crnor of a State he is to execute the da
tics as provided by the laws of the State,
aud tor the time being his military
character is to Tjo suspended in his new
civil capacity. If he is appointed a
Stato Treasurer he must nt once assume
the custody and disbursement of the
funds of tho State and must preform
these duties precisely according to the
laws of the State, for hois iutruted
with no power. Holding tho office of
treasurer, aud entrusted with funds, it
happens '.but he is required by the
State laws to enter into bond with so
curity and to take an oath of office
yet from the beginning of the bill to tho
end there is no provision for any bond
or oath ot omce or lor aay single quail
fication required under the State law,
such as residence, citizenship, or any.
thing eiso. The only oath that is pro
vided for ia the ninth seotion, by the
terms ot whicti every one detailed or
appointed to any civil office in the State
is required " to take and to subscribe
the oath of office prescribed bylaw for
the officers of tho United States." Thus
an officer of the army of tho United
States, detailed to fill a oivil office in one
of these States, gives no official bond
and takes no official oath for tho per.
formance of his new duties, but as a
civil officer of the State only takes the
same oath which he had already taken
as a military officer of the United States
He ib at least a military officer perfor
iniug civil duties, and the authority un.
der which he acts is Federal authority
ouly, and the incvitablo result is that
the Federal Government, by tho agency
of its sworu officers, in effect assumes the
civil government of tho State.
A singular contradiction is apparent
here. Congress declares these local
State governments to bo illegal govern.
luents, and then provides that the illegal
governments are to bo earned ou by
l'cdcral officers, who are to perform the
very duties imposed on its own officers
by this illegal State authority. It
would be a novel spectacle if Congress
should attempt to carry on a legal Stato
government by the agency of its officers.
It is vet more strange that Congress
attempts to sustaiu aud carry on an illo
gal State government by the same Fed.
cral agency.
In this connection I must call atten
tion to tho tenth aud eleventh section
of tho bill, which provides that none of
the officers or appointees ot these mill
tarv commanders " shall be bouud in
their action bv any opiniou of any civil
officer of the Uuited States, and that all
the provisions ot the act shall be con
strued liberully. to the end that all the
intents thereof may be fully and perfeo
tly ctrricd out." It seems Congress
supposed that this bill might require
construction, aud they fix, therefore
the rule to bo applied, iiut where is
tho coLtU'uc;iuu to come horn '( Ccr
fa
m 4V mm
AUGUST 1, 1867.
tainly no One can be moro in 1want of
instruction than a soldier or an officer
of tho army detailed for a civil service,
perhaps the most important it, a State,
with the duties of which he is altogeth
er unfamUiar. This bill says he shall
not bo bound ia his action by the opinion
of any civil officer of tho United States.
The duties of the office are altogeth
er civil, but when he asks for an opin
ion, he can only ask the opinion of an.
other military officer, who perhaps uni
dcrstands as little of his duties as he
does himself ; nnd as to his " action,"
he is answerable to the military authori
ty, and to the military authority alone.
Striotly, no opinion of any civil officer,
other than a judge, ha3 a binding force j
but these military appointees would not
be bound, oven by a judicial opinion.
They might very well say, even when
thoir action is in conflict with the
Supreme Court of tho United States,
" that court is composed of civil offi
cers of the United Statos and we are
not bound to conform our action to any
opiniou of any such authority."
luis bill, and the acts to which it is
supplementary, aro all founded upon the
assumption that these ten communities
aro not States, and that their existing
governments are not legal. Throughout
tho legislation upon this subject they are
called rebel States. Aud in this par
ticular bill they are denominated " so
called States," and the vice of illegality
is denominated to prevado all of them.
The obligations of consistency bind a
legislative body as well as tho individ
uals who compose it. It is now too late
to say that these ten political communii
ties aro not States of the Union : Dec
larations to the contrary in theso acts
are coutradicted again aud again by
reputed acts of legislation enacted by
Congress from the year 18G1 to 1807.
During that period, whilst these btatcs
were iu actual rebellion, aud tfter that
rebellion was brought to a close, they
have been again and again recoguized as
States of the Union, llcpre.sentation
has been apportioned to them as States.
They havo been divided into judicial
district and circuit courts ot tho United
States, as States of the Union only can
be districted.
Tho last act on this subject was pass.
ed July 23, 1800, by which every one
of these ten States was arranged into
districts and circuits j they havo been
called upoQ by Congress to act through
their Legislatures upon at least two
amendments to the Constitution of the
United States ; as States they have
latified one amendment which required
the vote of twenty.seveu States of ths
thirty-six then composing the Union ;
when the requisite tweuty-seven votes
were given in favor of that amendment,
seven of which votes wero given by
seven of thes ten states, it was proclaim,
cd to bo a part of the Constitution of tho
United Stales, and slavery was declared
no longer to exist within tho United
Statos or any place subject to their
jurisdiction. If these seven states wero
not legal states of the Union, it follows,
as an incvitablo consequcuco, that sla
very yet exists, it does not exist in
these seven states, for they have abol
ished it also in their own stato Constitu
tions,but Kontucky, not having done so,
would still remain iu that state. Hut,
in truth, if this assumption that theso
states havo no legal state governments
be true, tlicn the abolition of slavery by
theso illegal governments binds uo one,
for Congress now denies to these states
the power to abolish slavery by denying
to them the power to elect a legal state
Legislature or to frame a constituaion
for any purpose, even for such a purpose
as the abolition of slavery.
As to the other constitutional amend
ment, having reference to suffrage, it
happens that these States havo not ac
cepted it. The consequence is that , it
has never been proclaimed or understood
even by Conr ts to be a part of the
Constitution of the Uuited States. Tho
Senate of tho Uuited States has repeat,
edly given its sanctiou to the appoint,
mcutof judges, district attorneys and
marshals for every one of these States,
and yet if they aru not legal States not
oue of these judges is authorized to hold
a court. So, too, both Houses of Coi
gross havo passed appropriation bills to
pay all theso judges, attorney aud offi
cers of the Uuited States for exercising
their fuuetiotis iu these States. Again,
iu tho machiuery of the internal reve
uuo laws all theso States are districted,
not as Territories, but as. Stxlci. So
much for contiuuous legislative recogni
tion. Tho instances oiteJ, however,
fall far short of all that might be enum
erated. Executive recoguitiou, as is
well known, has been fiequeut and un
wavering. The tame may be said as to judicial
recognition through the Supreme Court
of the Uuited States. That august
tribunal, from first to last, iu the admin
istration ot iu duties, in bauo aud upon
the circuit, has never failed to recognize
theso ten communities as legal States of
he Union. Tho ca.scs depending iu
that court upou appeal and writ of error
from these States when the rebellion
began, have not Lccu diiiuLsea upon
I I I nl l n.fl M i
.
t'j i i ju ii it rt i .riii i Ef m
VOLUME SEVEX-XUMDER 21.
TERMS 1 50 PER AXXUM.
any idea of the cessation of jurisdiction.
They were carefully continued from
term to term until tho rebellion was en
tirely subdued aud peaeo re-established,
and then they were called for argument
and consideration, as if no insurrection
had intervened. New cases, occurring
since tho rebellion, havo como from
theso States before that court by writ of
error and appeal, and even by original
Buit where only a State could bring such
a su)t..' lhcso case3aro entertained by
that tribunal in tho exercise of its ac
knowledged jurisdiction, which could
not attach to them if they had come
from any political body other than a
Stato of the Union.
Finally, in the allotment of heir cir.
caits made by the judges st the Decern
ber term, 1800, every one of these
States is put on the same footing of
legality with all othor States of the Un
ion. Virginia and North Carolina, be
ing a part ot the fourth circuit, are al
lotted to the Chief Justice. South Car
olina, Georgia, Alabama, .Mississippi
and Florida, constitute tho fifth circuit,
are allotted to tho late Mr, Justice
Swayne, Louisiana, Arkansas and Texas,
are allotted to the sixth judicial circuit
as to which there is a vacancy ou the
bench. The Chief Justice, in th excr
cise of his circuit duties, has recently
held a Circuit Court in the State of
North Carolina. If North Carolina is
not a Stato of this Union, the Chief
Justice had no authority to hold a Court
there, and every order, judgment nnd
do jrec rendered by him in that court
were coram non Judicc cl vidui.
Another ground ou which these re
construction acta aro attempted to be
sustained is this : that theso ten States
are conquered territory : that tho con
stitutional relation in wnich they stood
as States teward ths Federal Govern
ment prior to the rebellion, has given
place to new rtdation : that their tern.
tory is a conquered country and their
citizens a conquered people, and that in
this new relation Congress can govern
thorn by military power. A title bv
conquest stands on clear ground ; it is a
new title acquired by war. It applies
only to territory, lor goods and movable
things regularly captured in war are
callod " booty," or, if taken by individ.
uai soldiers, " plunder. ' There is not
a foot of the land in any one of theso
ten States which the Uuited States hold
by couquest, save such land as did not
belong to either of these States or to any
luutviutiai owner, i mean sucu laud;
as aid ueiong to tne pretended govern.
ment called the Confedorato Stales.
These lands wc may claim to hold by
conquest; ; as to an other land or ter
tory, whether belonging to States or to
individuals, the Federal Government
has now no more right or titlo to it than
it had before the rebellion. Our own
forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom-hous
es, and other federal property situate
in those States, we now hold, not by tho
title of conquest, but bv our old title
acquired by purchase or condemnation
to public use, with compensation to for
mer owners. We have not conquered
tnese places, but have simply " rcpos
sesseu tnem. xr we require more
sites for forts, custom housc3 or other
public uso; we must acquire tho title to
them by purchase or annronriation in
the regular mode. At this moment the
United State3, in tho acquisition of sites
for national cemeteries in these States,
acquires title in the same way.
The Federal courts sit in court houses
owned or leased by the United States,
not in the court houses ot the States.
The United States pays tach of these
States for tho use of its jails. Finally
the United States levies its direct taxes
and its internal revenue upou the prop
. . .I.e. I , ..
erty in tnese orates, inciuair.g tne pro
duction of tho lauds within their terri
tonal limits, not by way of levy and
contribution in tho character of a con
queror, but iu the regular way of taxa
tion, under the samo laws which apply-
to an tue otner states ol tho Union
From first to last, during tho rebellion
and since, tho title ot each of these
States to the lands and public buildings
owned by thein has never been disturb.
ed, and not a foot of it has ever been
acquired by the United States, even
under a title by confiscation, and not a
foot of it has ever been taxed by Fed
eral law.
In conclusion, I must respectfully ask
the attention ot Congress to tho tousid
cratioii of one more question arisintruu
der tins bill: It vests in (ho military
commander, sunject only to tho approv
al of tho General of the army of the
United States, un unlimited power to re
move from office any civil or military
olhcer in cacti ot those states, and tb
lurtncr power, sutjject to the same ap
proval, to detail or apnoint nnv miiitarv
officer tr soldier of the United States to
perform the duties of tho officer so re
1 li r 1 1 ii
mover, nou to nil an vacancies occur.
ring in these state by death, resignation
or otherwise, llic military appointee
thus required to ler'orm the duties of a
civil officer, according to the laws of tho
state, and as such required to take an
oath, is, for the time being, a civil offi
cer. hat is Lis character f Is he a
civil officer of the state or a civil offieor
of tho United States ? If he is a civil
officer of the state, where is the Federal
powor under our Coustilutiou whioh uu-
thonzci his appointment byauy Federal
officer t If, however, he is to be con
sidered a civil officer o! the UniL-cl
States, as his appointment and oath
would seem to indicate, where is tho
authority for his appointment vested by
the Constitution ? The power of ap
pointment ci an oiucers ot the United
States, civil or military, where not pro
vided tor ia tho Constitution, is vestei
iu the President, by and with the ad
vice and conscut of the Scuate, with
this exception : that Congress may, by
law, vest tho appointment of suoh infe
rior officers as they think proper in the
President alone, in tho courts of law, or
iu tue ueaus ot departments. Uut th a
bill, if these are to bo considered infe
rior officers within the meaning of the
Constitution, docs not provide for their
appointment by the President alono, or
by tho courts of law, or by tho heads of
departments, but rests tho appointment
in one subordinate executive office, sub
jeet to tho approval of another subordi
nate exccutivo oiiicer ; so that if we
put this question, and fix the character
of this military appointee, either woy
this provision of the bill is equally op
posed to the Constitution.
lake the case of a soldier or officer
appointed to perform the office of judge
in oue of these states, and as such to
administer the proper laws of the state,
whore is the suthority to be found in tho
Constitution for vesting in a military or
an executive officer strict judicial func
tions to be exercised under state law ; it
has been again aud again decided by tho
suprenn court of the United states that
acts of Congress which have attempted
to vest executive power in the judicial
courts or judges of tho United states aro
not warranted by tho Constitution.
It Congress cannot clothe a judge
with merely executive duties, how can
they clothe an officer or uoldier of the
army with judicial duties over citizens of
tho United states who are not ia tho
military or naval service.
bo, too, it has been repeatedly decid.
cd that Cougrcs3 cannot require a state
oiliccr, executive or judicial, to perform
any d uty enjoined upon him by a law of
the United states. How, then, can
Congress confer power upon an cxecutivo
officer of the United states to perform
such duties iu a state ? If Congress
cculd not vest in a judge of one ol these
state, by direct enactment, how can it
accomplish the same thing indirectly by
removing the state judge and putting au
officer of the United state in his place ?
Jo me these considerations are con
clusive of tho unconstitutionality of the
part of the bill now beforo me, and I
earnestly commcud their consideration
to the deliberate judgment of Congress.
Witnia a period less than a year tho
legislation of Congress has attempted to
strip tho executive department of the
Government of somo of its essential
pow ers.
It is to be feared that theso military
officers, looking to the authority given
by these, rather than to the letter of the
Constitution, will recorruize no authority
but tho comniandor of the district and
the General of the army. If there were
no other objection than this to this pro
posed legislation, it would be sufficient.
Whilst I hold the chief executive author,
ity of the United S'tates j whilst ihe obli
gation lests upon me to see that all tho
laws are faithfully executed, I can never
willingly surrender that trust, or the
powers given for its execution ; I can
never give my i.ssent to bo made respond
sible for tho faithful execution of laws,
ami at the samo time surrender that
trust, and the powers which accompany
it, to any other executive officer, high,
or low, or to any number of excoutive
officers
If this executive trust, vested by the
Constitution in tho President, is to be
taken trom him and vested in a subordi
nate officer, the responsibility will bo
with Congress, ia clothing the subordi
nate with unconstitutional power, and
with the officer who . assumes its exer;
cise. This interference with tho con
stitutional authority of the executive
departmeut is an evil that will eventua
lly sap the foundations of our federal
system, but is not the worst evil of this
legislation. It is a great publio wrong
to take from the Prosident power con.
fercd on him alone by the Constitution.
But tho wrong is moro flagrant and
moro dangercus whec tho powers so
takeu from he President are conferred
upou subordinate cxecutivo officeis, and
especially upon military officers. Over
nearly one-third of the states of the
Uuiou military power, regulated by no
fixed law, reigns supremo. Each one of
the fivo district commanders, though
not choscu by the people or responsible
to then, exercises at this hour more
executive power, military and civil,
than tho people have ever been wil
ling to couf'cr upon the head of tho
axecutivo department, though chosen
by and responsible to themselves. Tho
remedy mutt come from the peoplo
t'leinselves. They know what it is and
how it is to bo applied. At the present
time they cauimi, according to the
form of the Coiittit ltiuii, repeal these
laws. They cujimt remove or control
this military despotism. Tho remedy
is nevertheless iu thoir hau ls. It is to
be found in the Lai Lit, mid isn furfl ouo,
if n it cunt rolled by fraud, overawed by
arbitrary power, or from apathy on their
part too long delayed.
With abiding ,mli lenco in their pa
triotism aud integrity, 1 urn still hopeful
of the tuture, aud that in tho end t'vt
rod uf despotism will be broken, ifia
armod heel ot power lifted troiu tin
neck of the people, nnd the principle!
of a violate! Constitution preserve 1.
V A.NJJKtW Jou.nson.