Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1867-09-06
From the Charleston Mercury, Aug. "a.
THE U. s. COURT PROCESS.

| II
| The papers inform MS that NJ Genaro1
Slckles request, the order to him from the
author!tles at Washington, directing him
10 resclnd the Order No. 10, so far as pro-
cess from the United States is concerned
until he can submit his arguments AGAINST
| it, promises, we think, great ADVANTAGES
to the Southern States, if rightly n sed Inv
the Government. There can be no donhf
it seems to us, that General Sickles is
right IN maintaining the validity of his
order, and IN refusing to rescind it, if
ms construction of the military acts
De correct. Ii 1t is true, that the
Southern States are not States of the
United States, butare CONQUERED territories
under absolute military domination--then
General Sickles is right. But if on the con
trary the military acts, asserting and en-
forcing this position, are unconstitutional.
then he is wrong. Whether he has right
TO suspend Judicial processes in North and
south Carolina depends, therefore, on the
constltutlonality or unconstitutionalitv of
the Reconstruction acts. Now. here is an
opportunity to test this question. II was
evaded In the case brought into the Su-
preme Court Of the United States, by the
States OF Georgia and Mississippi, on the
ground OF want of Jurisdiction. But
mere is process of the Court of the
United States, issued by the Chief jus
! tice of the United States. on n case tried
and adjudicated by him. If fairly pushed
to trial, we do not see how the question
OF constitutionality can be dodged.-
1t is we'll known, that Chief Justice
chase, IN the case of the admission of
Representatives from Virginia during the
war, to seats in Congress, expressed his
opinion in writing, that as no State had a
| right to secede from the Union of the United
States, Virginia was just as much a State
OF the United States, as any other State in
the Union and therefore, her Representa-
t!ves should be admitted to Congress- In
the prize cases, since the war ended, the
Supreme court of the United States has ia
ken the same position. If this abiudica-
tion is correct, no Military Commander,
either with or without the authority of
any legislation of Congress, can by
military order, arrest the process of the
Courts of the United States carrying out
the laws IN any State. AS mere conflict
OF authority, between the Military Com.
mander of this District and the authorities
OF Washington, the question is of very
small Importance. But when it may be
made to involve the validity of all the Re-
construction acts, it is of q magnitude which
cannot be exaggerated We trust that the
President will see it in this light and will
shape the course of the government, so as
to secure fair and conclusive adjudication
in the Courts of the United States on the
constitutionality of the Reconstruction acts
OF Congress. Let him not be diverted from
this great and patriotic object, by any con-
siderations of official dignity-or even of
constitutional Executive rights. These will
also be vindicated by the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States in the
case far better than he can do it by any
arbitrary removal.
Since putting the above in print, we
have received by telegram from Washing
ton the conclusion of the argument used
for supporting Order No. 10, as follows
" If the United States Courts in the rebel
" States be allowed to control the military
Z" authorities, the execution of the Recon
{" struction acts will, for obvious reasons,
" soon become impossible. Some of these
courts will begin by declaring the acts of
Congress void"
Within a week, the District Judge of this
State sitting at Greenville, has determined
that Order No. 10 has nullifed that clause
of the constitution which gives jurisdiction
to the United States Courts, Gin all cases
between citizens of different States" A
citizen of North Carolina has been turned
out of this court, when suing citizen of
South Carolina.
But suppose this court did interfere, and
should adjudicate the Reconstruction acts
unconstitutional-wha then? Were these
courts not specially appointed by the con-
stitution to protect it from usurpations
and would the judge do any more than his
duty, should he pronounce it paramount
to acts of Congress ? The remedy is easy
let the question go up to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and there Le
settled. Do the authorities desire that acts
of such vast Importance should be en-
forced, VIII N disputable and disputed be-
fore our judicial tribunals Do they sup
pose that they will be supported before
their constitutionality is fairly tried and
settled =? Would it not, therefore, be far
better to have this question settled, before
the acts are enforced, rather than enforce
them, with all their intense exasperations,
and then have them undone Higher-law
attempts by power to enforce laws, can
never win obedience or support. 1t is an
unheard of novelty--it is an unprecedented
enormity in q free country, to hear an ap-
peal to its courts of justice, alleged as a
reason why certain construction of law
should not be upheld.