Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1867-10-30

TEE CDUHTs DAHE 10 PM0FECE IRE
CONSTITUTION.
whenever any government, in q
country heretofore free, exceeds the
proper boundaries oflaw, 1t becomes the
most intolerable Of all tyrapnies. Keces-
ssrily suspicious and reyengeful, it con
fers no safety and admits of DO repose it
augments its vigors II Intellectually re-
sisted, or its caprice If implicitly obeyed.'
So the author Of History OF Scot
land, " says, and the truth Of the remark
has nev been more strikingly exempli-
fled than in the United States. or all
the "caprices Of tyranny" which have
made men detestsble, morehave' excelled,
and few have equslled, In contemptu-
Gus disregard of reason and justice, the
act Of Congress Of the I'd Of March, 1887,
by which the men who are governing the
country outside of the Constitution, IN
dertook to "legalize and make valid all
proceedings and acts done by military
commissions previous to the LIST Of July,
1866, and prohibited the reversal of such
proceedings by the courts Of the United
States, or Of State. II one had not the
Infamous enactment before his eyes, it
would be difficult to believe that any set
OF rational men could, or even any auto
erst in the nineteenth century, have
dared to pass such a law.
We publish elsewhere the decision Of
NJ 1T NTwWnnn Of tho EV7nrQnaa
| Court of the United States, made in the
| Circuit Court Of the United States at
Saint Louis, in the case Of MURPHY, tried
by a Military Commission at st. Louis
IN the autumn of1s65.
The reader will not fail to notice the
direct and plain words in which the
Court declared the act of which we have
spoken to be unconstitutional. The well
known Radical sympsthies Of the Judge
who was appointed by President LIN
COLIN give double weight to this deei-
sion, and make NOSE striking the con-
domination of Congress which they pro-
nounce. He declares that "nO clearer
case Of an az post Jacto law could be
framed;n which is in effect to declare
that Congress must have known it to be
so when they enacted it. They did know
1t: they could not but know it they are
not fools or utterly ignorant Of the mean
ing Of the Constitution; and they delib-
erately and willfully committed perjury,
by violating that Constitution which
they had sworn to support and which
expressly forbids the passage Of an eT
post facto law. What is the worth or
use Of such an oath, if it is not a crime to
violate it knowingly and intentionally ?
and why does not this perjury deserve to
be punished, like any other, by impris-
onment in q penitentiary and disquaiih-
cation to testify in Court?
Mr.. Justice MILLER also decides tbat
under the Act Of March Sd, 1868, citizens
Of States in which the Courts we're open
could not lawfully be tried by Military
Commissions, but were entitled to the
inestimable privilege of 3 trial by jury"
That privilege DoHld have been inesti-
msble to Mrs. SURRATT, in whose case the
Writ Of Habess Corpus fell stricken with
paralysis by the mandate Of power that
feared to incur the popular anger. NoU,
the Judiciary of the United States pro-
nounces that she was unlawfully eXeou-
ted. It therefore ]pronounces, also, that
MUDD and his companions and Col. ST.
LEGER GRENFELs, on the Dry Tortugas,
and BBANEin Fort lafayette, are unlsw-
fully imprisoned. Why iS their impris-
onment continued, since STANTON is no
Secretary of War?
The Courts Of the United States are
held ia the unreconstructed Southern
States. These are not only included in
Federal Circuits, but cases that have gone
I'D from them have been heard by the
Supreme Court which could not have
been done IL they had not been States Of
the Union. When Mississippi and Geor-
gis fled their bills in the same Court,
to enjoin the execution of the reconstruc-
ton acts, the Court did not hold that
they were not States, which was the very
first question in each case and without
deciding which the Court could not take
q step ia either.
Yet citizens are daily tried in these States
by Military Commissions, and some are
sentenced to imprisonment On the Dry
Tortugas. Why does the President per-
nit it. How many Judicial decisions
Toes be propose to walt for, before he
,beys his oath to support, preserve and
the Constitution. Long ago the
Supreme Court decided, all the Judges
,onourring, that Congress could not pos
any powers, anywhere, except under L
ne Constitution, and COULD NOT estsb. 4
ish despotisms even over conquered I
country. Why does he not enforce this :
Will it be any more ~uncOnsti- $
utionsl if Congress deposes him by res :
lutiOn, or suspends him during his trial I
n articles Of impeachment ? docs he
dare to protect aud preserve the 5
Constitution? Is he afraid he will fail {
nd fall in the attempts Better, inf :
better fail and fall and even lose :
lis head, than not dare TO do Whist his a
.uty demands, and to break the oath he 9
as sworn. Even Gen. THOMAS, not Z
ong since, proposed to try a citizen Of /
'ennessse, by q Military Commission, 5
q pretended offence committed on Y
be lst-of August, 1857. Does the Presi- y
.ent imagine he eau win any honour by
onniving at such acts Of usurpatiOn ? "a
lie should remember that History may d
ondemE the bold usuFper who succeeds /; u
ut when one fails for van OF boldness p
pItiaa him Ia