Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1863-07-14

subject to the decision of the judiciary, otherwise
our form of government is subverted, the consttu-
tonal provision by which the legislative, executive
, and judicial departments of the government are
separate and distinct is violated, and there is no
check or control over The executive" The clrcum-
stances growing out of the su1ect under consdera-
ton demonstrate the wisdom of the trainers of the
Constitution, in adopting the principle by which
Congress has authority to exercise Judicial power
or to confer judicial power upon department OF
the executive branch of the government. The mil
itary officers appointed to execute the consumption
acts are naturally prompted to increase the numer-
ical force of the army, and for this purpose so
construe the acts as to embrace as many persons as
possible. For this reason, and as protection to
those citizens who are not embraced by the con-
scription acts, the Constitution provides third
branch of the government in which is contided the
trust of expounding the law and putting con-
struction upon the acts Of Congress, and 1t follows
that Congress has power to ignore the existence
of this third branch of the government and confer
on the Executive powers which belong to the ju-
dietary.
Cd. The intention of Congress to confer judicial
power on the Secretary of War, and authorize him
to establish inferior and superior Courts with the
right of appeal to himself If such had really been
the intention it would have been expressed in plain
and direct terms and the simple fact that the Sec
rotary, of War is authorized "to prescribe rules
effect" which power he would have had almost by
necessary implication surely cannot, when consid:
cred calmly and uninhuenced by collateral disturb
ing causes, be considered sufficient to confer pow
the Secretary of War. totaly at variance with
every principle of our government.
Sd. If the Secretary of War and his subordinate
officers are invested with this judicial power, so as
to exclude the jurisdiction of the State Courts for
the very same reason it would exclude the juris-
dction of the Courts and Judges Of the Confederate
States. No provision is made by which a case can
be taken for review before the District Court of the
Confederate States from these military judicial
tribunals. Consequently the judicial department
OF the government both State and Confederate, is
set aside, and the liberty of the citizen depends
solely on the action of the War Department and its
subordinate officers Can this be so? Surely not
Our conclusion is that the Court has jurisdiction
to discharge a citizen blythe writ Of habsGs corpus,
whenever it is made to appear that he is unlafully
restrained of his liberty by an officer of the Con-
federate States and that when case is made out,
the Court is bound exercise the jurisdiction which
has been confded to it "as a sacred trust" and
has no discretion and no right to be influenced by
considerations growing out of the condition of our
country but must act with a single eye to the due
administration Of the law, according to the proper
construction of the acts of Congress.
r. II. PEARSON.