Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-07-20

forts, arsenals, navy yards, custom
hOusesend other Federal property sit
uated in these States we now hold, not
by the title OF conquered, but by an old
title acquired by purchase or condemna-
ton for public use-with compensation TO
former owners. We have notconquered
those places, but simply repossessed
them. five require more sites for forts,
customhouses,ror other public uses, we
must acquire the title to them by pur-
chase of them, or by appropriation
in regular mode at this moment The
United States, in the acquisition Of sites
flor national cemeteries in those States,
acquires title in the same way. The
Federal courts sit n court houses owned
or leased by the United States--not in
court-houses of the States The United
States pays each Of these States for the
use Of their jails. Finally, the United
States leyies its direct tax and lis In
ternal Revenue upon the property in
these States, including productions of
lands within their territorial limits; not by
way of contributions in the character Of
a conquered people, but in the regular
way of taxation, under the same laws
which apply to all the other States Of the
Union, from first to last During the
rebellion, and since, the title Of each of
these States TO tbelands and public build
ings owned by them, has Eever been de-
sturbed. Not g foot of it has ever been
acquired by the United: States, even
under title of copfscation, and not
a foot has ever been taxed under Federal
laws. f.b-.t I'D
In conclusion, must respectfully call
the attention of Congress to the con.
sideration Of one more question arising
under the bill. II vests in the military
commanders, subjectonly 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 Of the ten States and further
power. subject to the same approval, to
detail or appoint any officer or soldier
Of the United States to perform the du.
ties Of the officers removed, and fill all
vacancies occurring in those States by
death, resignation or otherwise. The
military appointee thus required to per-
| form the duties Of civil officer, accord
ing to the laws Of the States, and as
such, is required to take an oath, is, for
the time being, civil officer.
What is his character Is he civil
officer of the State or civil officer of the
United States 2 Where is the Federal
power under our Constitution which au-
thorizes his appointment by any Fede-
raj iOficer2 If, however, he is to be
considered civil officer of the United
States, as his appointment and oath
would seem to indicate, where is the au-
thority for his appointment by the Con-
stitution-the power of appointment Of
all officers of the United States, civil or
military, where not provided in the
Constitution, is vested in the President,
by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, with this exception, that
Congress, by law, vests the appointment
of such inferior officers as they think
proper in the President alone, in the
courts of law or in the heads Of depart
ments but by this bill these are to be
considered as officers, within the meaning
of the Constitution, which does not pro-
vide for their appointment by the Presi-
dent alone, or by courts Of law, or by
heads Of departments, but vests appoint
ments in a subordinate officer. So, If
we put this question and fix the charac-
ter Of this military yappointee, either
way, this provision Of the bill is equally
opposed to the Constitution. Take the
case Of soldier appointed to perform
the office of Judge in one of these States,
and as such to administer the proper
laws of the State, where is the authority
to be found in the Constitution vesting
in military or in an executive officer,
strictly judicial functions TO be exercised
under the State law2 1t has been again
decided by the Supreme Court of the
U. S. that the acts of Congress which
have attempted to vest executive powers
in the judicial courts or judges of the
United States, are not warranted by the
Constitution. If Congress cannot clothe
Judge with executive duties, how can
they clothe an officer or soldier of the
army with judicial duties Of the United
States, who are not in the military or
naval service So, too, il has been re-
peatedly decided that Congress cannot
require a State officer, executive or judi
cial, to perform any duty enjoiued on
him by a law of the United States How
can Congress confer power upon
an executive officer Of the United States
to perform such duties in State ?
If Congress could not vest in judge OF
one Of these States any Judicial authority
under the United States by direct en-
actmeut, how can it accomplish the
same thing indirectly by removing a
judge and putting an officer ofthe United
States in his place. To me these con-
alterations are conclusive Of the uncon-