The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1863-07-22


agent of the government Of the United
States. although the imprisonment be IN
lawful and is not authorized by the act of
Congress under which the officer Processes
to act but in our opinion such an inference
will do great injustice to that able jurist !;
he surely could not have intended to put
"his obiter dictlp," in opposition to the
series Of authorities above referred to, with
Eout making any allusion or reference to
them, or any attempt to controyert the
reasoning upon which they rest. However
this may be, the decision does not conflict
with the concurrent jurisdiction of the
State Courts. and the obiier dict,un, il it be
one, is not entitled to the weight Of an au
thority and must be treated simply as the
opinion Of an able lawyer on question
not presented by the facts before the Court,
aud entitled only to thai degree Of con
sideration which its intrinsic merit will
command.
The same remarks are applicable 10 The
case of Hill and others, recently decided
by the Supreme Court OF the State Of Ala
bama. The petitioners claimed to be en-
titledto exemption by reason of bodily in
capacity, but had not been held unfit Tor
military service in the field BY surgeon
under the rule prescribed by tile Secretary
of War. We fully concur in the decision
Of tie case before the court indeed during
the last Spring | refused the application Of
two persons, who claimed exemption ON
the ground Of being "unft for military
service in the field be- reason OF bodily IN
capacity" because. Ky the proper constrae.
lion Of the exemption act only those per-
sons are exempted, who shall be held unit
for military service in the field by reason
Of bodily incapacity rnder rules To be pre-
scribed by the Secretary Of War; and &C
cording to these rules il was necessary that
the party should be examined BY a Surgeon
or board of Surgeons appointed for that
purpose, and the certificate OF the Surgeon
or Board Of Surgeons waS the only evidence
Of bodily incapacity that could be acted
on as evidence Of the fact; so in that case
the parties we're not unIawfnlly restrained
Of their liberty, but were lawfully in Gus
tody of the officer of the Confederate States
under the authority of the acts OF Congress
according to their proper construction.
Consequently that decision is not opposed
10 the Jurisdiction Of the State Courts,
when BY the proper construction Of the acts
fof Congress, one who is not liable To con-
scription, or who is exempt. is restrained
OF his liberty against law. That portion o r
the opinion and reasoning Of the learned
Chief Justice which is not applicable TO
The case made BY the facts before the Court,
has received from Us dye consideration.
Ga the argument, this position was taken:
Congress INA, authorize the President TO
suspend the writ Of habeas corpus; this
would not apply TO the State tribunals.
and If the State Courts and Judges have
power 70 issue the writ when person il
imprisoned BY an officer Of the Confederate
as the tribunals Of the Confederate States
are concerned, woul ID be vain and nugatory.
This reply answers the position: The &C u
Of Congress would specify the cases in
which, tie writ might be suspended, sr
EouId In general terms authorize The Prssi-
! dent 20 suspend il in all cases where per-
son shalI be imprisoned by order of the
Il ~ tatNts nHu a. NHG ATS VI lHhZreah
made in pursuance Of the Constitution are
the supreme law Of the land, il follows that
such IN Get would be As imperative IN Tie
State Courts and Judges a 81 tie lfvaa4!s
Of tie Confederate States.
4 tbs position was alsp taken: lti. III
mi,tsd that should judicial irJanl Uf
tie Confederate States, by III construction
Of an act Of Congress, subject citizen TO
imprisonment wrongfully tie State Courts,
having only concurrent jurisdiction. could
not interfere TO prevent tie opprs.on;
and ~ what ground can llity haze any
more poser 10 prevent oppression On lie |
part Of the Executive az We may suppose |
such case,) than 10 prevent oppression |
on the part ii the Confederate judiciary
This reply we think is a conelisise al. |
smer: The judicial tribunals 81 the Con-
federate States have Jurisdiction, tOnsr |
quently any adjudication Of those thin.
mails would fix tie construction 81 tie act
Of Congress, and the State Courts cosld not
rpvipV ~ roynrCe tt. Ierf.f0n. ,,sI4-a.