Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-09-03
Noon DISPATCHES.

II 4BG
WAsHIKsroN, Sepimber 2.-Attor-
ney-General BrineklF, under date OF
August 24th, submitte to the president
very long opinion , regard to Gen.
Sickles' interference vth the execution
OF a judgment of the strict court OF the
United States, Chief lstiee Chase pre-
siding, under his orCf No. 10. After
reciting at length tbeeireumstances OF
such interference, ant quoting para
graph Of said order pohlbiting the en-
fOrcement OF the judgnept or DEGREES for
payment Of money, ae causes OF action
arising between the lstl Of SeptembeT, +,
1860, and the 18th Of lay, 1881, the
General afgheat length that
the judicial powers Of th United States
are invested anterior 10 the laws
of congress by speial provision
Of the constitution. 4 similar grant
Of jurisdiction by Gen. Skies must have
appeared ridiculous, lid such been
inserted In his order. The attorney
general refers to the announcement Of
\ the chief Justice that twas incompati-
ble with the authority If the national
judiciary 70 sit where a Military aathoT-
ity existed which could impede its pro-
cess, and that It wss Olely in. cOnse-
quence Of the fact that % such military
authority then existed that he felt
willing to hold that cort. He there
fore submits that th case is one
of those which lie Hthin the pro-
visions of the statute q force for the
punishment Of persons ThO obstruct the
! process of the United Sites courts, and
Is simply the case Of high misde-
meanor legally CONTEMPLATED. The at
tOrney-general then peceeds to argue
at great length the supremacy OF the
court under the constitution over mili-
tary authority, and dies numerous au-
thOrities to support tbs position and de-
fine the scope and extnt Of these powers,
showing by them tina whenever within
| the territOrg of the United States, ire
spectively of persons II circumstances, q
matter OF eontroversylrises which Is dis
tinctIy eomprehendedhnder any one Of
! the clauses OF the constitution, and which
| is ia such a position as 70 be susceptible
| of judicial setiOu, it nust go within adj
! Indication or else must b. adjudicated by
/ the courts of the United States. This
/ provision being organic, is beyond the
! legislative power, if tha would be sup
! posed ever to have madethe attempt, to
refer the adjudication Of any such
! case against the cCnselt of parties or
in derrogatiOn of the poTer Of the judi
ciary, the executive power or to
/ any power or agency whatever. He ar
CUES that the action q the judiciary
would be wholly Intellectual unless the
result in each proper cas- was conclusive
and binding upon other ranches of the
government, and the entire people of the
country. To control onI proceedings it
would exercise control ever the court,
the judges and the partiss. This would
not Oe controlling bat alOlishing courts.
He argues that congress cannot abolish
the judicial districts, andthat its powers
cannot go beyond modifying and chang
ing from time to time as, in their wis
dom, may seem expedielt to the Organi-
zation of the courts and the division of
the country into Judicial provinces; but,
having once vested Judicial power. which
as we are instructed congress was
bound to do, that body cannot have
power to vacate any judicial tract. He
then proceeds to show, by citations from
the aets of congress establishing and de-
fining the judicial districts OF North Car
olina its status, by these acts and the
allotment Of judges, by the supreme
court, under them. II Is shown that
whenever, under the constitution of the
United States, either of authority or
Jurisdiction, attaches to districts or cir
cults IS they stand in the statute books,
was intended to be, and must be held OF
full force snd virtue now, as heretofore.
II it be admitted that ths Judicial 20
is intact in the district of North Carolina,
though the subject matter of its authority
is limited to a category, It is certain that
upon these subjects aud matters courts of
the United States for that district are su-
pFeme authority. He argues that the
judgment Of such a court, as of rights OF
person snd property, the command
ing general OF a military district
is bound to protect and enforce
in this view. He says the error
of Gen. Sickles reaches fully the statute
Of q provision of authority which, II per
sisted in, must Immediately acquire the
character of wagiDg war against the
United States, an undertaking which
would not for moment be imputed TO
the deliberate intention ofan officer hon
orably distinguished for his gsllantry in
defense Of the constitution. In this, as
in any OJHsr matter, there may nave
been q doubt as to jurisdiction but he
would not insult the intelligence OF the
commander of the second reconstruction
district to inquire whether or not he sup
posed himself authorized by law 10 forbid
the supreme court of the United States
from hearing causes affecting inhabitants
Of the states of North Carolina and
South Carolina without his consent.
He must take 1t for certain that
Gen. Sickles could not, when
issuing his order Ne. 10, have con-
templsted disputing with his authority,
the supreme bench. II is equally GER
tain if he had been disposed to ascertain
his authority through an adjudication by
q competent court, decision might have
been procured. The attorney general
then proceeds to show that Gen. Sickles,
in interfering with the district court, was
in effect interfering with the judiciary,
including the supreme court of the
United States as a whole. He then pro-
ceeds to examine the reconstruction acts
and sn act relating to appeals and writs
of error to the supreme court to show
that, with the exception Of the suppress
sion or interruption of the regular ses-
sions Of the court by rebellion, etc, the
judicial establishment was perfectly
intact, as il there had been no rebel
lion and no occasion for recOnstructive
legislation. He then quotes from the
law providing punishment for all
persons resisting, obstructing or i'm
peding any officer in serving an execu-
ton process of the court, etc, and de
elares that these laws are still in force,
and the president Is bound to enforce
them, and if he could be supposed to be
willing to suspend he has not the power.
The attorney general concluded his
argument as to allow all processes of
federal courts run In the name Of the
president of the United States, because
mandates Of the court call him to action
as they do to submission, and he must
execute them as laws of the highest
sanctity by the whole power of the
nation II necessary. Is your excellency
IN state Of collision with the national
Judiciary? If not, since the whole exec
utive power is thus vested in you by the
organic law, and can be diverted by
nothing but a change of the organic law
during your incumbency, it must follow
that the collision Of authority which is
the subject hereof is the misdemeanor of
a eODtumaeious aud unfaithful executive
agent, who, having offended against the
Lawful power Of the judiciary, has rem
dered himself liable to prosecution ac-
eOrding to law; but the great res
spOnsibility which appears 10 me to
arise on such an occasion, and when
the physical power of the offender is able
to do this, that for the sole executive to
suffer the judiciary to be overthEown in
any case would be, and, therefore, l am
sOlemnly impressed with the belief that
unless the president promptly refuse the
cOntumely disclosed to him he will be ex-
posed to the just imputatiOn Of q culpa-
bic insensibility to the co-oriinstive dig
nifty and paramount sanctity of the ma
tional department Of just contempt of law
INDUCED, speedily grasps at the heart
strIDgs of Dublic order and teaches