Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1867-08-01

to either of these States or to any in
dividual owner mean such lands
as did belong TO the pretended govern
ment called the Confederate States.
These lands we claim to hold by con
quest; us toal other lands or territory,
whether belonging to States or TO in
dividuals, the Federal Government has
now no more title or right to it than
it had before tho rebellion Our own
forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom
houses, and other Federal property
situate in those States we now hold,
not by the title OF conquest, but by
our old title-acquirod by purchase or
condemnation topnblic use, with com
pensation to former owners We have
not conquered these places, but have
simply "repossessed" them. If were
quire more sites for forts, custom
houses, or other public use, we must
acquire the title to them by purchase
or appropriationin the regular mode
At this moment the United States in
the acquisition of sites for national
cemeteries in these States, acquires
title in the same way. The Federal
courts sit in court houses owned or
leased by the United States, not in the
court houses Of the States. The Uni
ted State pays each of these States for
the use Of its jails. Finally, the Uni
ted States levios its direct taxes and
its internal revenue upon the property
in these States, including the produc-
tions of the lands within their terrific.
rial limits, not by way Of levy and con.
tribution in the character of a con
queror, but in the regular way of tax
alton, under the same laws which ap-
ply 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 foot of it has
ever been acquired by the United
States, even under title by confsca-
ton, and not 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 unlim-
tied power to remove from Office any
civil or military officer in each Of these
ten States, and the further power, sub
ject to the same approval, to detail or
appoint any military officer or soldier
Of the United States 10 perform the
duties Of the officers so removed, and
to fill all vacancies occurring in these
States by death, resignation or other
wise The military appointee thus
required TO perform the duties of
civil office, according to the laws of
tho State, and as such required TO take
an oath, is for the time being, civil
officer. What is his character ? Is he
civil officer Of the State, or a civil Of
fcer of the United States z If he is a
civil officer Of the State, where is the
federal power under our Constitution
which authorizes his appointment by
any federal oflicerg II, however, he is
to be considered a civil officer of the
United states. as his appointment and
oath would seem TO indicate, where is
the authority for his appointment
vested by the Constitution 7 The pow
er of appointment of allofiicers of the
United States, civil or military, where
not provided for in the Constitution,
is vestedin the President, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate,
with this exception: that Congress
may, by law, vest the appointment of
such inferior officers as they think
proper, in tho President alone, in the
courts Of law, or in the heads of dc.
partments But this bill, If these are
to bo considered inferior officers with |
in the meaning Of the Constitution,
docs not provide for their appointment
by the President alone, or by the
courts Of law, or by the heads Of de.
partments, but vests the appointment
in one subordinate executive officer
subject to the approval of another sub.
ordinate executive officer; so that if
we put this question and fix the char
acter of this military appointee, either
way this provision ofthe bill is equally
TO the Constitution.
Take the case of a soldier or officer
appointed to perform the office of
Judge in one Of these States, and as
such to administer the proper laws of
the State, where is the authority TO be
found in the Constitution for vestine
in a military or an executive officer
strict judicial functions to bo exercis.
cd under State lawl Ii has been again
and again decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States, that acts
of Congress which have attempted to
vest executive power in the judicial
courts or judges of the United States
are not warranted by the Consiitu-
tion.
If Congress cannot clothc a Judge
with merely executive duties, how can
they clothe an officer or soldier of the
army with judicial duties, over citi-
zens of the United States, who are not
in the military or naval serviceY
So, too, it has been repeatedly de-
oided that Congress cannot require n
State officer, executive or judicial, to
perform any duty enjoined upon him
by law of the United States How, .
-hen, can Congress conferpower upon /
IN executive officer of the United !
States to perform such duties in a ,
State If Congress could not vest in ,
1 Judge of one these States any Judi !
,ial authority under the United States
- ltvoot ,root,oa,t bor.- -. Z. - f,