Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1867-08-03
PlCKENs COURT HOUSE. S. C, SATURDAY AUGUST 8 1867.

~ Is pSW t'tc acquired by war. 1t applies
| only tdtarr,ory; for goods or movable things
regularlycnpturcd in war are called booty"
FOR il takeG by individun soldiers, plunder"
Ihereessis not foot OF land in any Of these
ten States which the United States holds by
conquest, save only such land MS did not be-
long to. esE iirf of these States or to my indi.
vidual o&sef, mean such lands MS did be-.
long to- upers,s1erItS cnf He'd sthes
confeiel M a sts3 ss. These lands we may
claim tUsf,ld by conquest AS to all other
land 6r tfreisory, whether belonging to States
or to individuals. the Federal Government has
now no iiicfe title or right to it than it had be.
fore thelsbei;on. Over our former aycscnas.
navy yaW. custom houses, and other Federal
pr"perty situatcin these States, We now hold,
not by Gio title Of conquest, but by our old
title, arMilred by purchase or, condemnation
iurpnblc use with compensation to former
ownrrsMsWe have not conquered these fla.
ces, buEhave simply rcpnsscsscd" them.
1t wc Iennirc more sites for forts, custom.
houses NRpublc use, we must acquire the H.
tlc to tlsln hy purchase or appropriation in
the regular mode
AtStbfsnomcnt the United States. in the
t.acquisithi'lo of sites for national cemeteries in
those States. acquires title in the same way
Tho Faieinl Courts sit in courthouses owned
OF leasdd ny the United States. not in the
conrthSfscs of the States. The United States
pays eS;'i ct thcsc States for the use of its
idils. fhjnally. the United States lcvics its
direct E%Hcs aud its internal revenue upon the
nrdpcfJgsin those States including the pro
dnctiopYsof the .nds within their tcrritnrinl
limitsTfpot by way Of lcyy and contribution
III he2Gl'aracter of n conquerer, but in the
rcguhtway of taxation, under the same laws
a al nj ,f tl,
UniuM
Frdin.iirst to last, during the rebellion and
since, Mic ,ilc ct carh.of these States to the
lands g8Ni public buildings Owned by them has
neveTbcnn. disturbed, and not n foot of it has
ever been acquired ty the United States even
nndeka.titlo by coulscutinn. aud not Il foot of
1t haigger been taxed under Federal law
tiiE pREsInENr1AL rRHnoGArlyr.
Tn 6bclusinn must respectfully ask the
a'teni2n al, Congress to The consideration of
e''' ,isSas ,tiis .iuo*inn arising unlcrthis bin. 1t
SGstsasAA-liaaa' rMli;ii'arY COMMANDERS. subject
army of the United States, an unlimited pow
er to remove from oAice any civil or mitary
officer in each of these ten States, aid the
further power, subject to the same approval,
to detail or appoint any military officer or SCI
dior of the United States to perform the du-
ties OF the officer 81 removed. aud to fill all
vacancies occ;,sioncd in hose States by death,
rcSi"natinn. or otherwise.
The military apro:nrc thus required to
perform the duties of civil office according
II the laws of the State, and as such required
to take All oath is, for the time being, a civil
oi'ic"r What is his character Is he civ
il "lsiccr'of tho State or II civil officer Of the
United States? If he is civil officer of the
State, where is the Federal power, under our
constitution, which authorizes his appointment
by any Federal officer? If however. lie is
20 &c considered civil officer of the United
States, as his appointment and oath would
secm to indicate. where is the authority for his
appointment vested by the constitution? The
power Of appointment of all othccrs,f the Uni
tcd'Statcs, civil ormitary, where not provided
for in the constitution, is vested in tho Presi.
dent by and with tho advice and consent Of
the Senate, with thiS exception that Cou.
grcss may ny law vest the appointment Of such
iiieiior uifccrs as they think proper in the
President alone, in the courts OF law, or in
heads of: depart tmcnts But this bill if these
are to be considered inferior officers within
tho meaning of the constitutions does not pro.
vide fur their appointment by the President
alone, or the courts of law, or by the heads
of departments, but vests the appointment in
oIc SuuOlulilHtc Executive Olllccr, SuulCcC 10
the approval of another subordinate executive
officer. SO that if We put this question and
fix the character of the military nppontcc
either way, this provision of the bill is equal
y opposed to the constitution.
Take the case of soldier or officer appoin.
ted to perform the Office of Judge in one of
these States, and as such to administer the
proper laws Of tho State. Where is the au-
tlority to be found in the constitution for
vcs'ing ina military or an executive officer
strict Judicial functions to be exercised under
State law 1t has bcon again ard again de-
oided by the Supreme Court Of the United
States that acts Of Congress which have at
tempted to vest executive powers in the Judi
cial courts, or judges Of tho United States,
are not warranted by the constitution.
If Congress cannot clothc Judge with
merely executive duties, how can they clnthc
an officer or soldier of tho army with judicial
duties over citizens of the United States who
are not in the military on naval service? SO,
too. it has been repeatedly decided that Con-
grcss cannot require State officer. executive
orjnaicia, to perform any duty cnjoipcd rron
him bya hw of the United States, How
then, caD Congress coufor pow er upon M cx
ccutve officer Of tho United States to perform
such duties IN State? If Congress could
not vest in i,mlgo of one of these States my
Il. 81 Al