Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-17
From the National Intelligenccr
/. s. SUPREME COURT.
AND MISSISSIPPI INJUNC
~

/ tII4tDittTlA AND A11SoiCfo1I1I1 1NO I M
| TI0N CASE.
! ] Ile Attorney CenermIs Closing Argument t
The argument in the Georgia and Missis
| sipDi Injunction case before the Supreme
| Court was concluded Monday by Attorney
! General Stanbery. The courtroom was
| filled before the hour Of eleven, and not
with~tanC3ing a couple of hours were con
sumed by the reading of various opinions
of the Court, delivered by all the Judges
except Judges Grier and Wayne, the audi
| ence retained their seats. Among those
present were the Hon. Thomas Ewing, the
| Hon. Reverdy johnson, the Hon. Messrs
! Boutwell,, Eidridge, and Lawrence, Joshu5
Hill, and BEN jamin Stanton, and number
! of well-knOwn members of the bar. Mr.
| Stanbery began quarter of two, and spoke
/ for ali hour and quarter:
May it please the Court, when / cOnclu
ded my argument in opening these motions
to dismiss and against the in junction, [ die
not expect again to occupy any further
time of the court [ meant in that open
ing to state every point afdto urge every
argument that occurred to me; and then
having fairly stated the case, to leave it tc
| be dealt with by the gentlemen on the 9th
er side. But [ find that upon some of the
points which [ made, I have been SO much
misunderstood by the opposite counsel that
| must have failed to make myself as clean
as [ intended to be; and [ therefore fee
some necessity to restate those points, and
| if possible, whether I am right or wrong, tC
make myself understood.
| My learned friends on the other side
| take great exception to the manner in which
[ have argued this case. They say there is
a great question here, and the gentleman
who argued last went so far as to say, the
greatest question that has ever been before
this court, involving the stabilityof our Gov
ernment, the security of our system-Fed-
| eral and State-and that that system was
now on its trial, and, he added, on its final
| trial; that as this court decided upon these
| motions, one way or the other, the Repub-
lie was to be saved or to be lost. It is in
reference to a question of such magnitude
as that, that the gentlemen say [ have not
quite come up to the height Of the argll-
ment; that instead of meeting this great
question rs it ought to be met, and coming
up to this top of speculation where they
are, have descended to some lower level,
and subordinated this great question to
mere points Of jurisprudence. Indeed
the learned gentleman who spoke last
says that | have evaded the question:
| am not conscious of that for to evade
anything is to see it before you as an
and | have seen no such obstacle in this
case, and felt no necessity for evading any
question that is in the case. What [ have
sought to evade are questions out of the
case; for the long training and discipline
OF the bar, and the experience of many
years, have taught NE as Il lawyer this duty
above all OtherS-tO see nothing but the
case, and to argue no question that is not
in the case. When [ am arguing Il case as
q lawyer no consideration shall induce me,
no matter how captivating 1t may be as q
field for the display OF forensic eloQuence,
to quit for 4 moment my case or the queS-
tions that belong to it. | am constrained,
and perhaps l may say g confined, cabined
and cribbed," to the case as it is. AS
lawyer, am like the veteran who can only
walk IL the military step, and when he stops
falls inevitably into the position Of the sol
der.
But the gentlemen say that in meeting
this great question which they see in the
case, have rather degraded the inquiry by
fixing my eye upon question of iurisdic-
ton. Now, what is question of jurisdic-
ton that it is matter of so little conse-
quence for a lawyer to look into it Let
me read an extract from the Equity Plead
lngs OF MIR. Justice Story, section 10, which
throws some light on the Importance of
questson OF jurisdiction. This is his lam
guage:
g But, whatever may be the object of the
bill, the first and fundamental rule, which
is always Indispensable to be observed. is
that 1t must state a case within the appro-
pirate Jurisdiction of court of equity. If
1t fails IN this respect, the error is fatal in
every stage Of the cause and can never be
cured by any waiver or course Of proceed
ing by the parties; for consent cannot confer
q .J'n'tSdicti0n not eeSte,l 6Y la1D. And, al
though many errors and irregularities NAV
be waived by the parties, or be cured, by
not being objected to, the court itself can
not act except upon its own intrinsic au-
thorty IN matters of juris fiction and
every excess Will amount to a usurpatiOn
which will make its decretal orders a null
lty, or infect them with ruinous mfr
nifty"
Thus we are taught that the first funda-
mental question in every case is the ques-
ton OF the jurisdiction of the court, Fol
lowing this advice, which is altogether con-
formable to my own experience as lawyer
the first question to which [ directed my
attention when the records in this case
came into my hands was the question of
the jurisdiction of this court, its jurisdic-
ton over the parties, its Jurisdiction over
VIC ouDJeCI-HdftutVi, over Tile FlSHI Seb up,
and over the relief which was invoked.
First, as to the parties I challenged the
jurisdiction of the court over the parties so
far as the defendants were concerned that
this being case calling for interference
under the original Jurisdiction of the court,
we must take care to see that we had par
ties who could invoke or defend against
that original jurisdiction. Upon that point
CLAIMED that the three officers who are
brought here as defendants, Mr.. Stanton,
General Grant, and General Pope in one