Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-09-02

WASHINGTON, September 2.-Auorney
Genepall Briuekley, under date Of Au'
gust 24th, submitted TO the President a
very, hlobgI opinions in regard to Gen.
les1interfefehee with the execution
of Judgment Of the District Court oil
the United States, Chief Justice Chase
presiding, under his order No 10. After
recitfag at length the circumstances OF
Isneh interferencsp and quoting o para.
sraphIpfsaih order prohibiting the en-
fofcenent Of the Judgment Or DEGREES for
,psynentof money, are causes of action
arising between the 10Th of September
1860, and the 18th Of May, 1851. The
Attorney Generallargues atolehgth that
thejudieial powers Of The United States
are, invested anterior TO the laws
of Congress- Ibylss special provision
9opf the Constitution "A similar grant
of SjafisaiadSh % 2, ~ General sickles
MUST have appearedgridiculous had such
been inserted inihis ORDER The Attorney
General refers ID the announcement Of
the Chief Justicethat it was incorhpati'
bleS with the diauthority Of the national
Judiciary 10 sit where a military author
ity, existed which Gould impede its pro-
cess, and that il was solely in cohse'
quence of the fact that no such military
authority then existed that he felt
wiling to0 hold that COURT HE there
fore y submits that the case ish one
of, those which lie within the pro-
visions of the statute in force for the
punishment of persons who obstrpct the
process of the United States Courts, and
is simply the case of a high misde-a
meanor legally contemplated. The At
torney. General then proceeds to argue
al great length, the supremacy Of the
Court under the Constitution over milf
tary authority aud cites numerous ad'l
thorities to support this position and de-
fine the scope and extent ofthese powers
showing by them that whenever within
the territory of the United StatesS ire
spectively of persons or circumstances,
a matter Of controversy arises which Is
distinctly compre hended under any one
of the clauses ofnthe Constitution, and
which is in such d position as to be sus1
ceptible of judicial action, 1T must go
within adiudeiation or else must be adju-'
Dictated by the courts of the United
States, q This proyisionbeing organic, 1t
Is beyond the Legislative power, ifothat
would be supposed ever to have made
the attempt, to refer the adjudication of
any such case against the consent ofpar-
ties or in derogatipn Of the power ofthe
judiciary, the executive power or To-
to any power or agency whatever He
argues thai the action Gof the judiciary
would be wholly Intellectual unless the
result in each proper case was conclu-i
size and binding rpou other branches
Of the government, aud the entire peO-
pie Of the country. To control our pro-
ceedings il would exercise control over
the court, the judges and the parties,
lThiswonld not be controlling, but sbol
ishing courts. He argues that Congress
cannot abolish the judicial districts,
and that it's powers cannot go
beyond modifying and - changing
from time to time as, in their wis
dom, may seem expedient to the
organization the courts and the diyis-
ion 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,yacate any judicial tract. He
then proceeds to show, by citations from
the acts of Congress establishing and de-
iining the judicial districtsin North Caro-
lima, its status, by these acts and the allot-
meht ofjudges, by the Supreme Court, nm
der them. It's shown that whatever, under
the Constitution Of the United States,
either Of authority or jurisdiction, at
taches to districts or circuits as they
stand in the statute books, was intended
to be, and must be held Of full force and
virtue now, as heretofore. If it be ad-
mitted that the Judicial power is intactin
the district Of North Carolina, though the
subject matter of its authority is
limited to a category, It is Ger.
lain that upon these subjects and mat
tiers courts of the United States for
that district are supreme authority
He argues that the Judgment Of
such court, as of rights Of person aud
property, the committeeman Of a
military district is bound 10 protect and
enforce 30 this. view. lie says the error
Of General Sickles reaches fully the
statuie Of provision Of authority which,
If persisted in, must immediately acquire
Che character of wagiug war against the
United States, an undertaking which
would not for a moment be imputed to
the deliberate intention Of an officer
honorsbly distinguished Tor his gnllantry
in defense Of the Constitution. In
this, as in any other matter, there may
have been q doubt as to jurisdiction
bu, he would not ipsult the intelligence
Of the commander Of the second recon