Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-07-26

L
1 are entertained by thet tribunal in the ex
t ercise of its acknowledged jurisdiction
| which could not attach to them if they hac
come from any political body other than
State of the Union. Finally, in the allot
, ment of their circuits, made by the judge
at the December term, 1865, every one o
these States is put on the same footing O
legality with all the other States of the
Union. Virginia and North Carolina, be
{ ing q part of the fourth circuit, are allotted
to the Chief Justice. South Carolina
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida
constituted the fifth circuit, and was allot
ted to the late Mr.. Justice Wayne. Louisi
ana, Arkansas and Texas are allotted to the
sixth judicial circuit, as to which there Is
vacancy on the bench
: The Chief Justice, in the exercise Of his
circuit duties, has recently held Clrcul
Court ia the State of North Carolina L
North Carolina is not State of this Union
the Chief Justice had no authority to hole
a court there, and every order, judgment
and decree rendered by him in that court
was cOydn2 non .juoice, and void.
Another ground on which these recon
struction acts are attempted to be sustained
is this: That these ten States are conquered
territory; that the constitutional relation III
which they stood as States toward the fed
eral government prior to the rebellion has
given place to Il new relation that this
territory is conquered country, and their
citizens a conquered people ; and that, IN
this new relation, Congress can govern them
by military power.
| A title by conquest stands on clear
ground. It is new title acquired by war.
| 1t applies only to territory !; for goods or
movable thin s regularly captured in war
are called "booty," or if taken by individ-
nal c0l6iare So nluO1er -
There is not q foot Of land in any one
| of these ten States which the United States
| holds by conquest, save only such land as
did not belong to either of these States or
to any individual owner. [ mean such
lands as did belong to the pretended gov
eminent called the Confederate States
| These lands we may claim to hold by con-
quest. AS to all other land or territory,
whether belonging to States or to tndiyidu-
ais, the Federal Government has now no
more title or right to it than it had before
the rebellion. Over our forts, arsenals,
navy-yards, custom houses, and other fede-
raj property, situate in these States, we now
hold, not by the title of conquest, but by
by our old title, acquired by purchase or
condemnation for public use with compen-
sation to owners. We have not conquered
these places, but have simply "r e-possess-
ed " them. II we acquire more sites for
forts, custom houses or other public use,
we must acquire the title to them by pur
chase or appropriation in the regular
mode.
At this moment the United States, in the
acquisition of sites for national cemeteries
in those States, acquires titles in the same
way. The Federal Courts sit in court
houses owned or leased by the United
States, not in the courthouses owned by
the States The United States pays each of
these States for the of its jails. Finally the
United States levieS It's direct taxes and it's
internal revenue upon the property in those
States, including the productions of the
lands within their territorial limits-not by
way of levy and contribution in the char
acter of a conqueror, but in the regular
way of taxation, under the same laws
which apply to all the other States of the
Union.
From first to last, during the rebellion
and since, the title of each Of these States
to the lands and public buildings owned by
them has never been disturbed, and not a
foot of it has ever been acquired by the
United States, even under Il titlefby contis-
cation, and not a foot Of it has ever been
taxed under federal law.
In conclusion, must respectfully ask the
attention Of Congress to the consideration
of one more question arising under this bill.
1t vests in the military commander, subject
only to the approval of the General of the
army of the United States, an unlimited
power to remove from Office any civil or
military officer in each of these ten States
and the further power, subject to the same
approval, to detail or appoint any military
officer or soldier of the United States to
perform the duties of the officer so removed
and to fill all vacancies occasioned in these
4 nflo
The military appointee thus required to
perform the duties of a civil Office accord
ing to the laws of the State, and DIS such
required to take an oath, is, for the time
being, civil officer. What is his charac-
ter Is he a civil officer of the State or q
civil officer of the United States If he is
q civil officer of the State, where IS the fed
eral power, under our constitution, which
authorizes his appointment by any federal
officer If, however, he IS to be considered
a civil office: of the United States, as his
appointment and oath would seem to indi-
cate, where is the authority for his appoint
ment vested by the constitution The
power of appointment of all officers OF the
United States, civil or military, where not
provided for in the constitution, IS vested
in the President, by and with the advice
and consent OF the Senate with this excep-
ton that Congress may by law vest the
appointment of such inferior officers as
they think proper in the President alone,
in the courts of law, or in the heads of de-
partments. But this bill, if these are to
be considered inferior officers within the
meaning of the constitution, does not pro-
vide for their appointment by the Presi-
dent alone, or the courts of law, or by the
heads Of departments, but vests the ap-
pointments in one subordinate executive
officer, subject to the approval Of another
subordinate executive officer So that if
we put this question and fix the character
of the military appointee either way, this
provision of the bill is equally opposed to
the constitution.
Take the case of soldier Or officer ap-
pointed to perform the Office of Judge in
one of these States, and as such to admin
lister the proper laws of the State. Where
is the authority to be found in the Consti-
tuition for vesting in military or an exec
utive officer strict judicial fun ctions to be
exercised under State law? Tt has been
again and again decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States that acts of
Congress which have aaampted to vest ex-
ecutiy1 bowers III the iudicial courts or