Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-05-10
From the National Intelligencer.
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.
GEORGIA AND MISSISSIPPI INJUNC
TION CASE


| The great argument was continued Fri
| day before the Supreme Court, on the ap-
phcation by Georgia and Mississippi to1
an Injunction against the agents engaged
in enforcing the military reconstruction
bills of Congress. The court room was not
as much crowded as on the previous day,
but outside the bar the seats were all taken,
and the space around the door was filled
with those standing up. Amongst the au.
dience we noted Senator Patterson, ex-
Senator McDougall, the members of the
judiciary committee, Messrs. Wilson,
Marshall, and Eldridge; Judge Under.
wood, Hon. Joshua Hill, Hon. Joseph, Sc
gar, and number of gentlemen of the
| legal profession. Mr.. Walker began his
argument at a quarter after eleven. He
spoke until twenty-five minutes of three,
and commanded the profound attention OF
| all present. He spoke as follows:
Mr. Walker said that he never rose to
| address any tribunal with so deep a sense
of the solemnity of the occasion, and of
the momentous issues involved in the con-
| troversy. The cause of the Constitution
of the American Government, and of self
| government throughout the world, was now
on trial-he believed, upon its final trial
and it was now to be decided for this coun-
| try, for posterity, and for all the world,
whether written constitutions are mere
parchment scrolls whether they are words
written upon the sands, to be swept away
by the first angry surge of popular passions
which may roll over them whether they
can be evaded by technical issues or pleas
of want of jurisdiction, or whether they
furnish that remedial process which will
enable the judicial tribunals to carry them
into effect. It is a question whether it is
| practicable to divide the Government into
| three separate departments, or whether the
| Legislative department is to be omnipOtent,
| and whether by some power claimed to be
| political, or some absence of authority on
the part of the judicial tribunals to inquire
into the controversy the Constitution can
be maintained and indicated. 1t was for
himself q source of profound regret that his
learned colleague, Mr.. Sharkey, so long
the honored Chief Justice of Mississippi,
and who had devoted his life to the defence
of the Union and the Constitution-who,
in the heart of the rebellion, risl1ed his life
day after day in defence Of these great
rinciples--had insisted upon his Mr..
Walkers addressing the court.
for want of Jurisdiction. Such a motion, If
it can be entertained at all, can only be re-
garded in the nature of a general demurrer,
not in this case to the parties, but for want
of power on the part of the court to inquire
into the questions involved in the contro-
versy. Such a motion admitted all the facts
stated in the bill, and also admitted all the
differences fairly deducible from those facts
in their strongest application to the case,
and simply insisted that admitting these
facts and these necessary differences from
/ them to be true, the court cannot grant re-
lief.
It was said that this was political ques-
ton. There should be no confusion of
| terms here. What is the difference be
| tween a political and a judicial or constitu-
tional question when an act of Congress is
in controversy? There is no difference
whatever. 70 say that the court will not
inquire into this case because the act of
! Congress which it is called upon to exam
inc involves an exercise of political power
is to admit that Congress had power to
pass the act, and that therefore it was q
constitutional law. When the learned At
torney General addressed the court in OPP
position to the jurisdiction upon that
ground, he still presented constitutional
question. Had Congress the political pow
| er to pass the act ? Was the discretion
vested in them by the Constitution SO com
prehensive that it was beyond the iuquir-
ing power Of the judicial department ?
That is only another form of saying that it
is constitutional law because if Congress
had the political power to pass it, the act is
constitutional.
What were the political questions into
which courts could not examine Are they
cases of laws passed by Congress? Begin
ming with the first case in Dallas down to
the last reported decisions at this term, he
challenged the Attorney General to pro-
duce q single case where, when law of
Congress was presented to the court on the
one side and the Constitution on the other,
the court did not consider it its duty to in
quire into the constitutionality of the law.
Political acts which the courts cannot in
quire into were of q different description
| When, sometime after the battle Of San ia
cintO, the President acknowledged the in
! dependence of Texas, which was an eNecu-
! tive act, the court declared that that was
| a political power, vested in the President
| or, in other words, unconstitutional pOwerves-
| ted IN the President, for neither Congress
J nor the President, under the name OF poll
teal powers, possesses any other than consti-
tutional powers. 1t being political, and,
therefore, q constitutional power vested in
t1iO ASSluClIl, VIC COuIC "tIG OI0C1ttttStt
from all inquiry into the propriety of that
executive act. So, also, in the case Of LII
ther VS.. Borden, from Rhode Island, an
attempt was made, by insurrection, to over
throw the charter government of Rhode Is
land and inaugurate new popular govern
ment. This was resisted by the charter
government, and resisted successfully. It
was resisted in thejudicial forum, the conrts
sustaining the legality of the charter gov
eminent. It was resisted successfully in
arms, and acknowledged by the President,
and aid given in its support. That, the
court held, presented a political question
between the two governments which the
Judiciary could not inquire into
None of these cases were acts of Con-
gress, and in numerous cases the court had
passed upon the constitutionality of such
acts. If the court had right to make the
inquiry and to pronounce in favor of the
constitutionality of law, it had the same
power to inquire and pronounce against the
constitutionalty of law, because the CUES
ton of Jurisdiction could not depend upon
the ultimate results of the final hearing
Here he felt it proper to say word in
Of rho L