The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-09-02

/
ssructon districts the commanding Officer Is charged
"prot ct by the express terms Of the Reconstruction
laws act oil "a March. 1857 section three II must be
oev' nd dispute authorities and the statutes which
have been introduced accepted, that tho right OF
ntlgatlng 10 the Federal courts, and the right OF
oelng tried IN Them for violations OF the criminal
code OF the United States, and OF course the Que
conservation o. their authority in every form,
are par or the rights to be and the duties
be performed BY the respective commanders OF the
construction districts In this viex the error OF General
sckes reaches the fun stature OF peryerson OF au-
thory, which, persisted in must Immediately aequ
the Character OF The crime OF evyng war aga the
United states, an undertaking which would for r
moment DO imputed TO the deliberate intention OF an
officer honoraoy distinguished for mis- galantry in de-
| fence OF the constitution.
to jurisdicionf Certainly 10 this as 10 any other
matter there may have been . doubt; mt IL would in.
suit the lnteieenee o. the Commander u the Second
Reconstruction district 70 inquire whether he sup
posed himself Authorized by Law forbid the
Court Of the United State. from hearing Affecting
persons nhabtng the States OF North and South Carol
without his consent Naturally person could hesitate
whether he had such . power, without considering
whether was not his duty court BY arms
II should himi We must take II 70 BE- certain that
could not have been IN the pation Of General
sckles when issuing bis Order No 10 dispute with his
sword tho authority Of the Supreme Bench YET IL 10
equally certain that be had been disposed 70 ascertain
bis authority through adjud cation BY competent
greatest facility defendant could have raised the
question Of jurisdiction In marty any ct the term
toe Judgment was then adverse 10 the power Of General
eickles Il must have appeared easy procure nna
and conclusive decision in the Supreme Court . writ
Of II that onicer had . doubt this subject
then. he must have Known the lawful course for s
luton. When o difference between . military
agent and court - 70 the Jurisdiction Of
to decide for himself in his own favor the act can
bear no other name than usurpation. But IL may DO
thought he did 80 only a. TO the issor court and mos
as 10 the Supreme Court. Now, though he may not
have suspected the fact, moments reflection must
show that the Interference which under consideration
cary including supreme Court Of the United States
~ whole and the force which, through us subordi-
nate Colonel Frank was threatened against the process
Law from similar threat rudeIy directed to the Judges
Of the Supreme Court at Washington The process,
which was In Marshal Goodies hands, and indeed. for
anRht that appears here may have susd pursu
ance OF q mandate from the Supreme Court remandiug
a with directions for further proceedings in con-
formty to the decision Of that court control over
such process would be control over the whole pro-
ceedngs and the court itself It's august judges OF their
Moreover. II final process may be controlled BY the
order In question, so may mesne step in
sails be stayed, and that like suits not yet initiated
shall not be instituted II the inter- with process
which is nov in hand could be justine so could
eectuai Interference at stag IN any case at
his pleasure IN the Carona dstrics be made by Gene
raj Sckes TO prevent all appeal to the Supreme Court
This, potentially, Gus ng the Jurisdiction OF the Su.
prems Court ITSELF abolshing the federal courts ~ SUCH
in the locality; separating his district ono vital par
sa 1USy eod dsvng
enforcing his subordinaon 70 the United States except
by force OF arms The virtues OF no man may be per-
mtted TO authorize him to aspire dangerous
dependence Of bis felow-citizens
So II there had been doubt whether the powers Of
laws the proper way to solve was the very thing
which would DO totally excluded by the violent action
which has been taken in the promises But there 20
much as doubt?
THE RECONSTRUCTION STATUTES.
Three acts Of CONGRESS pas under the designation Of
the reconstruction laws, those Of the I'd March,
23d March and tho 10Th July, 1867. The preamble Of
the rs. declares state of political and social dissolu
ton TO be impending or actually existing in several
N lbe
condition. ana for the purpose Of eectng their resiors
ton the proposed Legislation has become necessary.
Supposng the conditions TO be Is declared In the pre-
amble OF the first act, these statutes are 10
be treated As eminertiv remedial and
opinion Of Congress the object was to restore them
But the legislative and executive departments OF the
government parook in no degree Of the Prosraton as
would be conceded; and how much did the judicial de-
partment partake Of II? II the object recon-
sruct what bad fallen into ruin, that 1t should be
restored into good order shall that which is in good
order be overturned Obviously, what left OF order
TO DO conserved, and what disorder to be
restored In respect the revenue the mails, &c,
have heard OF destructive interference bus in
respect 70 the courts tho disposition Is exhibited to
destroy Yet ths whole series Of provisions in the
several acts contains nothing In which can perceive
source such astonishing misconsructon On the
contrary the following act. which like the act relating
to the allotment of justices took effect the day
with the earliest o. the Reconstruction acts appears
demonstrate the opposite view.
RELATING TO APPEALS AND wRiTs KRRoR TO TIE
sUPEENE COURT.
Be 4 enacted ac Tina, where any sPpsal or writ OF err
Sdsnsns Of Of The n,ea
ne re o e o s
Of such have been suspended or
% sii ii
s IN ss ne nc have u S
brought from any such judgment decree such appeal
..
ply 70 ns s an or
2, The reEsl. Of the court ssc'ion l. act Of
This act II rerard be had "a IN specisl ob;ect NAV
be taken to be in pari sdferd with the Reconstruction
laws and 70 the like extent under the rule they are
all be read law. Like the three acts above
mentioned the object Of this was TO remedy mischief
which had out OF the rebellion but for the pur
commander, to be the fundamentally. Rights Of
appeal which had not yet expired by lapse OF time
su npe on uD NJ the limitation s1ured and WITH II sns
right after which thy ceased. The object DOW was
TO revive said rights The circumstances which had
interviewed, and which had now ceased are denoted In
the act They arc thus defined in 1.-THE regular
of the have been suspended interrupted
by insurrec,iou rebellion" This act by unms,aka
bic implication SHOWS on the day OF passing
the Reconstruction statute, that with the ex.
cep,ion Of the suspension or interruption Of
the regular sessions OF the court by rebellion, &C. the
Judicial establishment perfectly intact as II there
had been rebe lion and occasion for restorative
OF Congress wholly passed away at least on the I'd Of
March, Is evident from the fact mat the act passed
granting thing TO be done nov on the express ground
that by such interruption could not have been done
formerly aud requiring that IL be done within
hence otherwise the time which. In the absence OF
interruption runs against the right snail the dis
trcts who're the rcfisf Is TO take eject else
where.
Such in respect 10 its dignity iss power and the un.
impaired Integrity Of It's machinery the judicial estab
lshment OF the United Sates To guard It's supremacy
the administration OF justice Congress has provided
stern laws
PrSTsHMEyr REsfsnSG JUDICIAL AUTHORITY.
The following provisions among Others, belong hero
any person persons shah kncwinsly and w,lfully
oppose officer Of the United States
attempting 70 serve or execute any nesLe pros
Of United stAtes other legal judicial writ or
whatsoever, shall assault beat wound any
ocer or other person duly authorized In serving
cutting writ rule order process OF warrant Aforesaid
person knowingly and wfuliy OFFENDING In the
shall viction thereof be net
ceedng month"; and hnsd NOT exceeding e3 tAcs
0th April, l1yo section IA
The offence Of ,bstructing process eonsss says Mr..
Justice Washington. 10 refusing 70 give up possession,
or in opposing obrructns ths execution OF the writ
oy thresis Of violence which Il 10 In ths power Of the
parry 70 enforce. (United States W Lowry WASH,
iee ANY obsructioa 10 the free action OF the officer
or his lawful ssEstanta wifuly placed In his way for
the purpose Of obstructng him. 10 sufficient q Curtis
e. G., ESQ.,