The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-04-13
!. CHI A E,S ON.
SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL IS, 1867.
THE INJUNCTION.

1t is perhaps Unnecessary to discuss further
| the motion before the Supreme Court as the
argument was to have been made yesterday,
and the action Of that tribunal will soon be
known. But it is important not to misunder-
stand the position taken in behalf of the mo-
tion.
The States of Mississippi and Georgia move
for leave to file petition for an Injunction
| against the President, the Secretary of War
! and the military commander, preventing them
from putting into execution the provisions of
the Reconstruction Act, upon the ground that
the Act is unconstitutional-the unconstitution-
ality of the law consisting in this: That these
States are now and have always been States Of
the Union, not responsible in that capacity for
the unlawful acts of their individual citizens,
and that the provisions of the Act contrayenc
the rights of ssich States under the Constitu-
ton, and are beyond the powers vested in Con-
gress BY the same instrument.
Now if in 1860, New York or Ohio had made
before the Supreme Court precisely the same
motion, that the State Of South Carolina was a
State Of the Union and had no right to scccdc
thcrcfrom that the President was about to
prevent this action by force of arms, and Con-
grcss had by law raised an army for that rur-
pose, and then calling upon the Supreme Court
TO enjoin the President and the Commanler-in-
Chief from proceeding, and thus submitting
the whole question Of the State action to the
decision of the Court, would South Carolina
have paid the slightest attention to the mo-
tion? ..sI-i.
Would she not have maintained
!. That the question was political one, and
extends beyond the judicial functions Of the
Court.
>. That whether the State had right to
scccde or not, was question to be decided by
the sovereign State alone
And if that was true in 1860, what makes it
less true in 1867?
If the Supreme Court could not decide upon
our right to secede, how came the same Court
to decide upon the consequences Of our seces-
sion? Or, is it meant grayely to argue that,
ns we had the right 10 secede from the Union
of our own will, without the consent of the
Union: so we have the right to go back Of our
own will, without the consent Of the Union
# we had not the right to. secede, then our
- ' s'oA"'Aon' oSlue sAuu peyono the law,
and the result was submitted to the decision of
arms and not to the decisions Of courts.
If we had the right to secedc, then our sepa-
ration was both de .tacto and ae jure, and how
in the name of reason can we get back except
by one of two ways-negotiation or force? If
by negotiation, where are the articles Of the
Treaty of Peace? If by force, in what char
acter can we present ourselves before the courts
of the country thai. connnarail ,,o,a
In view of such embarrassing questions, is
not the conclusion Of Judge CAMPBELL, pub
! lished in yesterdays NEWS, the wise one, when
he says, :.I regard it as an inexorable fact
that there is no constitutional opposition that
can be made to the Military Bills that will have
any other operation than to increase the exist
ing anarchy.'' .s.F.y.a ~