Daily union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1865-1866, 1866-04-17
Iaiun and Amtrifan.
TUESDAY. APRIL IL. 1866.
THE BUREAU COURTS.
THEY ARE TRESPASSERs UPON THE
RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE
Important Decision by Judge TrIss.

On W eQneSlay ihSt Il case was presented
to Judge Trigg, at Memphis, against the
Superintendent Of the Freedmen's Bureau,
Gen. RUyKLE, praying an injunction sus-
pending the execution Of Judgment rem
dered by Gen. r., against the estate of John
S. Heron, in favor of freedman. Though
the injunction was denied, it will be seen
that Judge TRIGG holds that these Bureau
Courts as such, in rendering decisions and
enforcing them against citizens and their
property, are trespussers, and as such are liza
bic to be proceeded against by the courts of
the State, just as other trespassers. The de-
cision is of such pervading interest that we
give it in full, as reported in the Memphis
Commercial, Of the 10Th, as follows:
The bill is based on the alleged illegal &C.
ton of the defendant in respect TO the prop
erty of plaintiff under assumed rights as
Superintendent Of the "Bureau Of Refugees,
Freedmen and Abandoned Lands" estab-
lished by act Of Congress of June, 1865.
Tue question has arisen on the proper
construction Of this act of Congress, estab-
fishing such Bureau; whether Congress, by
this act, gave power to establish Courts,
10 try cases between white citizens and
freedmen. II any such power is conferred,
il il 20 be drawn from the first section Of the
act in which it is stated that ''there is here
by established in the War Department, to
continue during the present war OF
rebellion, and for one year thereafter,
a Bureau Of Refugees, Freedmen and Adam
doned Lands. 10 which shall be committed,
as hereinafter provided, the supervision and
management Of all abandoned lands, and
the control Of all subjects relating TO refu-
gees and freedmen from rebel States or
from any district or county within the ter
ritory embraced in the operation of the army,
under such rules and regulations as may be
prescribed by the head Of the Bureau, and
approved by the President p-(See Sec LIST,
act Of March Sd, 1863.
If this power or right to establish Courts
for the trial Of causes arising between white
citizens and freedmen exists, it is 10 be de-
rived from that section.
The Court is unable to see by what sort
Of construction the head of the Bureau could
suppose that the act empowered him to e.
tablish Courts 10 take jurisdiction of all
such cases. The Constitution of the United
State provides that the judicial power Of
the United States shall be vested in one
Supreme Court and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time or
dain and establish (See Art. Ill, Sec. /,
Constitutional That provides for the es-
adjustment Of the Court therein named,
and leaves to Congress the power to estab-
lish such inferior Courts as il may deem
proper.
IL seems manifest that there is no power
granted by Congress in this act 10 establish
such Courts, and in order TO make IT such a
Court as this Freedmen's Court assumes to
be. Congress must itself establish it, and
define It's powers and judicial authority, and
declare what are the subjects Of Its jurisdic-
ton.
see nothing in this act which confers upon
this Bureau judicial powers, or which author
ICES its officers and agents TO establish Courts,
and il is not in accordance with the Consti-
tuition and the tribunal rendering this iudg-
ment as a civil Court has mistaken the ex-
tent Of the power and authority conferred
tpon il by the act Of Congress, and its action
ia assuming as q Court, 10 adiudicate ques-
lions arising between citizens, or between
white men and freedmen; and rendering
Judgment as such Court, Is 4 mere nullity.
There is another feature in the act, which
NAV explain how and why Courts like these
came 10 be established: There is hereby
established IN The Var Department, to con
tinue during the present war of rebellion"
etc The question might then arise, whether
the War Department could authorize the
establishment of a Court such rs this is
alleged 10 have been. The Bureau was, in
some sense under the control of the War
Department; and being under its control,
the question arises, whether that Department
might not have exercised the right or
power 20 establish such a Court for the pur-
pose Of adording security and protection to
that class of persons for whose benefit the
aet in question was passed.
Military Courts have been established in
fines of war. and have been sanctioned as
such. This was done during the war with
Mexico. But they were not recognized as
Courts Of the United States, established by
authority Of the Constitution and laws there
OF, but as Courts established or sanctioned
by the commanders Of the American forces
as, mere agents Of the military power, ia
assist Il in preserving order in the conquered
territory, and to protect the inhabitants in
their persons and property during the mill
tary OCCUPATION of the country. These
Courts were subject 10 the military power,
and their decisions under its control, when
ever the commanding officer thought proper
20 interfere. They were not Courts of the
United States, and had no right as such to
adiudicate questions brought before them.
Their judgments could not have been re-
cognized as the sentences of a Court In the
sense Of the Constitution, however much
they might have been sanctioned as a iegiti-
mate exercise Of military power for the pur-
pose Of their creation.
SO Of the Courts in question, established
by the authority of the War Department OF
the Government, as a part Of the machinery
of the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, etc.
These can not he recognized as Courts in the
sense Of the Constitution of the United
States, because the judicial power exercised
by them is not derived from the Constitu-
tsOn, nor from any inferior Courts" IN con-
formity 10 that instrument.
IL they can lie regarded, then, As Courts
in any sense, il must be in the sense of those
established in Mexico during the war with
that country; as Courts established or sane
toned by the War Department or military
power of the Government, as the agents OF
that Department to assist in protecting, pro
viding for, and preserving order among that
class OF persons, whose interests were con-
6ded ~ the Bureau created. by the act of Con-
gress in question.
II these courts could exercise any legiti-
mate authority, or claim for their judgments
or DEGREES any binding effect or efficiency,
thew could only do so by virtue of their con-
nection with the military power. in the
then existing state Of things, the country be-
ing torn bv war Of rebellion, and there be
ing a seeming necessity TO provide for the
class of persons mentioned in the act Great
ing this Bureau, this Court does not under
fake now to determine, nor indeed, is il ne
cassarv for the purposes Of this case, that II
should decide, how far these Bureau Courts
should be sanctioned as legitimate tribunals
In the exercise of the Judicial powers, con-
ferred upon them, under the authority Of the
War Department.
For, however raid their judgments or de-
crees may have been, and by whatever right
thew NAV have enforced therein, as trur mea-
sures, whether upon grounds Of crpcdieacy OF
necessity, during the existence Of the rebel
lion, il would seem quite certain that In,
termination Of she war would end and abro
gate the Courts created by IT, and operating
as part of and in connection with it
The recent proclamation OF the President OF
the United States declaring that an insur.
recfion no longer exists, is a declaration OF
peaoe. which sweeps from among Us every,
thing which savors of mitItdTg constraint upon
the rights Of citizens, and restores 10 them
the ordinary and peaceful channels far
the assertion and enforcement of these
rights. .... ..
Assuming then, that the Courts in ques.
ton were. in their inception, legitimately
and pronerlv established and that the iuris-