Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1864-06-05

| From the AnEuHis Consituiionalist.l
! This distinguished gentleman has introduced
into ths Senate series of resolutions, which
have excited some commendation among per
sons, who, like the honorable Ssnator himself,
are ignorant Of Constitutional Law. Ignorance
in politician is crims,n for if they do not in
form themselves, they should keep out Of ofics,
! and not gull the people who look to them for
| light.
But not wishing eur readers to take our iDse
dizit as 30 what the law is, we simply remark
| that the honorable gentleman from Texas, was
probably not aware that the question he attempts
to settle, has been previously settled By \ far
higher authority than Mr.. Wigfall, or the Con-
gTsss to which he belongs-we refer to The su-
pIems court of Georgia.
In the case Of the State vs. James L. Minis
and James D Burdett, habess corpus, under
the statue of 81 Charles the Second-brought
! for the Government, at the instance End request
of the Secretary of War, Judge Campbell-the
superior court for the Middle District of Georgia
delivered the following decision, which we give
/ in full.
We will only add that the suprame court of
Georgia, at Atlanta, Jaly term, 1868, affirmed
the decision of the court below.
We give first the resolutions themselves
The resolutions of Mr.. Wigfan, of Texas,
being the special order of the day, were taken
up on the 10th inst
Mr. Wigfall said as his resolutions had been
iusccurately printed in the newspapers, he
would read a correct copy;
1. That the Congress Of the ConfedeTste States
of America has the undoubted right, during the
invasion or rebellion, and when the public
safety requires It, to suspend the writ Of hsheas
corpus, and that while so suspended, it is not
competent for any Confederste jGdgs 20 dis
charge from custody any person held under or
By virtue of the authority Of the Confederate
States.
3 That the Stats courts, being established by
State authority can, in no manner, be effected
by Confederate legislation, and that, therefore,
an act of the Confsdarats Congress suBpeBding
the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus does
not apply to them, and in no wise prevents thsir
exercising such jurisdiction or issuing such
wriu as by the laws Of their States they are al
lowed to exercise or issue.
3. That the State and Confederate Govern
ments are separate, distinct and coordinate Gov.
sTnments that each has its Legislative, execu-
tive and judicial departments, and is = perfect
government in itself; therefore, neither can in
tertere in any manner with the legislative, exec
utive or judicial action of the other, and that the
courts Of neither can inquire into the Legality of
the arrests Of persons ia custody under or by
the authority of the other, o. afford such per
sons relief.
L. That the Constitution of the Confederate
States is, SIS TO the States and between them,
compact, and ttat each has as in all compAets
betWssn sovereigns, perfect right to declare
It's true intent and meaning, and that the eiti
zsns of each State are bound By such decision.
: "'hSt as 10 the citizens of each State, the
Conssa.UtiOn of the Confederate States having
been ordained and established by tho game Ru-
/ sbority as their State constitution, is ally
supreme and binding over them As their Cv.sti-
tuition is, and that the Government established
by it, to the extent ef its delegated powers, of
which the State only is the Judge, is IS fully
empowered to act for them as their State gov
srnnent and that when it does 80 set, their
State government, having no supremacy over
/ the Confederate Government, cannCt release
them from theiE obligations to obey
Mr. Wigfal then proceeded to an elaborate
argument, TO expound these resolutions and
| give his views upon the rights snd the powers
severally of the State and Confederate Govern
ments. On the conclusion of his remarks, on
motion of Mr. Hill, of Georgia, the Senate re.
solved into secret session and the doors being
opened, on motion of Mr. Mitchell, of Arkansas,
the Senate adjourned.
We give the decision of the court below, and
request that our readers compare the points with
| the third resolution of Senator WigfAll.
The supreme court decision has not yet been
published, and we therefore cannot give t. Bat
We know ourselves, and are also informed by
the council for ne Govsrnm0nt in the case;
Georgia, Richmond e0usty. az ChGmgsrs, msy
%, 1868.
John K. Wimberly vs. James l. Minis and
James D Burdett, Buh-enrollng oficers.--Ha-
| beas cerpus In this case the petitioner applied
sor the writ habeas corpus Rs far back as the
29th December last, alleging in his petition that
he was illegally conscribsd and deprived of his
liberty by said enrolling officers, because hg
was an oVerseer upon plantation in said coun.
ty, with ten slaves over sixteen years of age un.
der bis management etc. Judge Holt, to whom
the application was made, issued the writ on the
30th December, and the retuln of the cub enroll
ing officers was made on the same last named
day In their return they admit their detention
of the petitioner, but claim that he is properly
conscript under the enrolling acts, and sEser
theirEofice Of enrolling officers of the county
| of Richmond. A plea was fled by the cOunse
(Mr Barnes) for the enrolling officers, denying
Ihs jurisdiction Of the State court in the prem
ises Thus stood the pie, in the case. Bal
owing TO the rapid decline in Ihe health Of Judge
Holt be WAS never able TO hear and Determine
the case And after bis death it was, for various
GOOD causes, postponed until now. The only
question raised in the argument Of the case By
the counsel for coDscript officers, is the one
of jurisdiction made By the plea.
IN support Vi tNs pkehy IL Wa8 lnblBteQ
that as Wimberly is detained By authority
{ of the Confederate States, in accordance with
the acts Of Congress commonly called the Con.
script sets, therefore the case was within the
limits Of the sovereignty assigned by the con.
stitution to the Confederate States, and . hsheaG
corpus issued by State judge has no authority
within said limits. Tho only question presented
for adjudication at this time, therefore, is wheth
or the State courts have jurisdiction of the case
is appearing that the applicant is restrained o.
/. his liberty By the authority Of law of the Con
federata Government. This is an important
, question, in the diRcussion Of which much lega
7 learning has been expended. The jurisdiction
] of the State courts in such and nearly simils
] cases, has been asserted on the one hand ani
deHied on the other by some of the abes
: lawyers in America Chancellor Kent, fo
instance, denied the Jurisdiction, while Jus
: tice S:ory asserted is. Bat the logic o
D the Constitutions and right reason is worth
, more in dstsrnining question Of this eharac
T ter than whole galaxy Of illustrio0s names
9 Whist then Is the teachings Of our Constitution
D on this point7 And what the fair and insvita
bic sequences Of that tsaching7 It Is univeT
+ sally conceded that our C0nGederate Govern
ment is . Government solely Of delegation
And if this be trus-two other propositions ar
of necessity true: Ist, that there must be
a higher sourcs Of power than the Canfederas
, Government, and that that higher source Q
! power, is the individual State ID, that th
Confederate Government is only sovereign
( within the sphere of its delegated poWarsl Th'
q 9th Sec of the 9th art ConfsdeTate ConatitRtiol
4 declares, that FIhe powers not delegated 10 .h
Confederate States by the Constitution, no
!, prohibited By it " The States are reserved 70 th