The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1867-07-31

f-7;s, siSsf - -
ground. 1t is new title acquired by
war. 1t applies only to territory, for
goods or movable: things regularly cap
tured in war are called "booty,n or if
taken by4indiyidual soldiers @plunder."
There is not afoot of land in any one
of these ten States which the United
States holds by conquest, save only such
land as did not belong to either of these
States or to any individual owner.
I mean such lands as did belong to the
pretended Government called the Confed-
crate States. These lands we may claim
Ito hold by conquest As to all other land
or. territory, whether belonging to the
State or to individuals, the Federal Gov
ernment has now no more title or right
to it than it had before the rebellion.
Over our forts, arsenals, navy yards, Gus
! tom houses and other Federal property
situate in these States we now hold, not
by the title of conquest, but by our old
title, acquired by purchase or condemna-
ton for. public use with compensation to
former owners. Wo have not conquered
these places, but have simply "repossess-
edo' them. If we require more sites for
forts, custom houses or other public use,
we must acquire the title to them by
purchase or appropriation in the reguler
mode. Atthis moment the United States,
in the. acquisition of sites for. national
cemeteries in those States, acquires title
/. in the same way. The Federal courts
sit in court houses owned or leased by
the United States, not in the court
| houses Of the States. The United States
paws 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 those States,
including the productions Of the lands
within their territorial limits-not by
way of levy and contribution in the char
acter of a conquerer, but in the regular
way of taxation, under the same laws
I which apply to all other States Of the
Union.
From first to last during the rebellion
and since, the title of each ofthese States
to the lands and public buildings owned
by them has mover been disturbed, and
not a foot of it has ever been acquired by
the United States even under title by
! confscation, and not foot of it has ever
. been taxed under Federal law.
! In conclusion I must respectfully ask
! the attention of Congress to the conside-
ration of one more question arising under
. this bill. It vests in the military COM
mander, subject only to the approval OF
the General of the army of the United
States, an unlimited power to remove from
: office any civil or military officer in each
I, of these ten States, and the further pow
er, subject to the same approval, to detail
or appoint any military officer or soldier
6 of. the United States to perform duties OF
s the officer 80 removed, and to fill all the
vacancies occasioned in those States by
death, resignation or otherwise.
! The military appointee thusrequired to
perform the duties of civil officer ac-
cording to the laws of the State, and as
such required to take an oath, is, for the
! time being, civil officer What is his
/ character? Is he a civil officer of the
i State. or civil officer of the United
States If he is a civil officer of the
. State, where is the Federal power, under
: our Constitution, which authorizes his
appointment by any Federal officer? If,
however, he is to be considered q civil
officer Of the United States, as his ap-
pointment and oath would seem to indi-
cate, where is the authority for his ap-
pointment vested by the Constitution
: The power of appointment of all officers
of the United States, civil or military,
: where not provided for in the Constitu-
ton, is vested in the President by and
with the advice and consent of the Sen
ate, with this exception-that Congress
may by law vest the appointment of such
inferior officers as they think proper in
the President alone, in the courts Of law,
or in the heads of Departments. But
4 this bill, if these are to be considered in
/ ferior officers within the meaning of the
C Constitution, docs not provide for their
appointment by the President alone, or
the courts of law, or by the heads of de-
partments, but vests the appointment in
one subordinate executive officer. So
that if we put this question and fix the
character of the military appointee either
way, this provision of the bill is equally
opposed to the Constitution.
Take the case of soldier OF officer ap-
pointed to perform the Office of Judge IN
one of these States, and as such to adj
minister the proper laws of the State.
Where is tho authority to be found in the
Constitution for vesting in military or
an executive officer strict judicial func-
tions to be exercised under State law /?
1t has been again and again decided by
the Supreme Court Of the United States
that acts of Congress which have attempt
cd to vest executive powers in the judi
cial courts, orjudges Of the United States,
are not warranted by the Constitution.
If Congress cannot clothe judge with
merely executive duties, how can
they clothe an officer or soldier of the ar