Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-07-22
5 COLUMBUS O., G MONDAY MORNING, 6,

by purchase or condemnation for public
use, with compensation to former owners
We have not conquered these places, bui
simply repOssessed Them. 2 sgiUp ii'fo2
! If we require more. sites for forts, Gus
tomyhouses or other public uses. we must
acquire the title to them by purchase OF
appropriation in the regular mode. oAt
thisnmoment the United States, in 1.-THE ac-
quisition,of sites for patiopal cen eteries in
those States, acquires the title In the same
way. The Federal Conrts sit I'm court
houses owned or leased by the United
States, 7notsin eolrt-housess of the States
The United States pays each OF, these States
for the use of its jails.
Finally the United States levies its direct
taxes and its internal revenue upon the
property in these States, including the
productions OF the lands, within their. ter
ritorial limits, not by way of contributed
in the character of Il cOnqueror, but in the
regular way of taxation under the same
laws which apply to all the other States Of
the Union.
Prom first to last, during therebelfion
and since, the title of each of these States
to the lands and3 public buildings owned
by them ehas-never been disturbed, and not
foot of it has ever been acquired by the
United States, even under title of contis-
carton. and not a foot has ever been taxed
under Federal law. zaiG2 ~ sDs-
In conclusion, must respectfully call
the attention of Congress to the consider
alton of one more question arising under
this bill It vests in the military conn
mander, subject only to the approyalo 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 further power, subject to
the same approval, to detail or appoint any
mil; nff cnl6iar nf tho TInitp6
States to perform the duties of the officer
so removed, and to fill all vacancies occur
ring in these States, by death, resignation,
or otherwise. The military appointee must
be required to perform the duties of a civil
officer according to the laws of the State,
and as such is required to take an oath, and
is for the time being civil officer. What
shis character? Is he acivil officar of the
State, or civil officer of the United States
Where is the Federal power under ouI
Constitution which authorizes his appoint
ment by any Federal officer? II, however, he
is to be considered civil officer of the
United States, as his appointments and oath
would seem to indicate, where is the au-
thority tor his appointment by the Consti-
tuition The power of appointment of all
officers of the United States, civil or mill
tary, where not provided for in the COnsti-
tuition, is vested in the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate
WIFI JnlS 6AC6DGlOlls OlldO NOUST0oS, ny ldW-
may vest the appointment of such inferior
officers as they may think proper in the
President alone, in the courts of law, or in
the heads of departments. But this bill. il
these are to be considered Inferior officers,
within the meaning of the Constitution,
does not provide for their appointment by
the President alone, or by the courts OF
law, or by the heads of departments; but
vests the appointment in subordinate
officer.
So if we put this question and fix the
character of this military appointee either
wav. this provision of the bill is equally
opposed to the Constitution.
Take the case of a soldier 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 fouLd in the Constitution for yesting in
a military or an executive officer strictly
Judicial functions to be exercised under the
State law?
It has been again decided by the Supreme
Court of the United States that the acts of
Con gress which have attempted to vest eX-
ecutive power in7the Judicial courts, or in
Judges of the United States, are not war
ranted by the Constitution. If Congress
can not clothe Judge with merely execu-
tive duties, how can they clothe an officer
or soldier of the army with judicial duties
over citizens OF the United States who are
not in the military or naval service? o. .s
So. too, it has been frequently decided
that Congress can not require State Off
Ger, either executive or judicial, to per-
form any dnty enjoined upon him by a law
of the Upitod States How can Congress,
then. confer power upon an executive off
Ger of the United States to perform such
duties in q State? If Congress could not
vest in Judge of one of these States any
judicial authority of the United States, by
l. ILL
the same thing indirectly by removing a
State Judge and putting an officer of the
United States in his place? -rf-I-aS - - Il
To me these considerations are conclusive
of the uncoDstitutionality of this part of
the bill before me, ,and earnestly commend
their considerationsto the deliberate judg-
ment of Congress 2 ,s=5 eaa zEan7 -
Within period less than year the
legislation of Congress has attempted to
strip the Executive Department of the
Governm ent of some of its essential pow
ers. The Constitution and the oath pro-
vided in it devolved on the President the
power and duty to see that YthePlaws are
faithfully executed The sGonstitut tion, in
order to carry out this power, gives him
choice of the agents, and makes them sub
iect to his control and supervisors; but in
the execution of these laws the constiru-
tional obligation upon the President re-
mains, but the power to exercise that con-
stitutional duty is effectually taken away.
The military commander is, as to the pow
er of appointment, made to take the place
of the President, and the General sof the
army the place OF the Senate, and any att
mpt on the part OF the President TO assert
his own constitutional power may, under
pretense of law. be met by official insub-
ordination. 1t is to be feared these miiis
tafy officers, looking to theauthority given
by these laws rather than to the letter of
the Constitution, will recognize Sno ail-
thorty but the commander OF the district
and the General OF the army. If there
were no other objections than this to the
proposed legislation, it would be sufficient.
: Whilst hold the chief executive thor
ity of the United States; whilst the Obliga-
tion rests on me to see that all the laws are
faithfully executed, l can never willingly
surrender that trust or the powers given
for its execution. / can never give my as
sent to be made responsible for the faithful
execution of the laws, and at the same time
surrender that trust and powers which ac-
it, to another executive officer
high or low, or any number of executive
officers. sa ii 90
If these executive trusts vested by the
Constitution in the President, are to be ia
ken from him and vested in subordinate
officer, the responsibility will be with Con-
gress, In clothing the subordinates with
power and with the
officer who assumes its exercise. This in
terterence with the constitutional authori-
ty of the executive department is an evil
that will inevitably sap the foundations of
or Federal system, but it is not the worst
evil of this legislation. 1t is a great pub
lie wrong to take from the President pow
ers conferred on him alone by the Consti-
tuition. But the wrong is more fragrant and
more dangerous when the powers so taken
from the President are conferred on subor-
dinate executive officers and especially up
on military officers.
Over nearly third Of the States of the
Union military power, regulated by no
fixed law, rules supreme. Each of the five
district commanders. though not chosen by
Tho naOpla or raSponSih1a tn tham avar