The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-03-28

enforce punishment for thatofIence, not
withstanding the pardon. il such exclu
sion can be effected by the execution 0faI
exploratory oath, covering the offence
the pardon may be avoided, and that nc
complished Indirectly which cannot b'
reached'by direct legislation. 1t Is MOI
| within the constitutional power ofCon-
/ gress thus to infiict punishment beyond the
reach of executive clemency. From the
petitioner, therefore, the oath required by
the act of Jan. IA, 1862 cannot be exacted
even were that act not subjected to any
other objection than the one Just stated.
1t follows, from the views expressed, that
the prayer of the petitioner must be grant
| ed, and the amendment to the second rule
of the court. which requires the oath pre-
| scribed by the act of Jan. "a, 1865, to be
taken by attorneys and councillors, hav-
| ing BEEN unadvised1y adopted, must be
rescinded, and it is so ordered"
Let us stand by this decision Of the
Court and claim that every citizen re-
stored to the right of suffrage shall have
the right to register and vote, and that
those who have mot received pardon
cannot be DISTINGUISHED, except upon sim
dictment by grand jury Of the State or
District where the offence was commit
ted, and conviction by an impartial iury.",
But it has been urged thatthe Supreme
Court possesses no power to give any re-
lief against the provisions of the military
bill, because of the decision of the Court in
the case of Luther VS.. Borden; 18th Cur
tbs Rep, p. 4. This was an action Of
trespass, commenced in the Circuit Court
Of the United States for Rhode Island, by
the plaintiff against the defendant, for
breaking into the house of plaintiff. The
defendants justified their action upon the
ground, that they were acting under the
lawful authority of the Government of
the State of Rhode Island.
When the separation from England
took place, Rhode Island did not adopt a
new Constitution, as most of the States,
but entered into the family of American
States, under the government established
by the charter of Charles the Second, in
1868, and continued under that charter,
with certain legislative amendments,
adopted from time to time by its Legisla-
ture, until 1871, when Thomas w. Dorr
and others uniting with him, got up a
a primary meeting, called a convention,
and attempted to take charge of the State
Government; and this suit originated in
a claim for damages, made by one of the
adherents of Dorr against party act
ing under the authority of the old
charter government of Rhode Island.
Chief Justice fancy, in delivering the
opinion of the Court, said 1.-THE point,
then, raised here, has already been decided
by the courts of Rhode Island. The ques-
ton relates altogether to the Constitution
and laws of that State: and the well-set-
tied lule in this Court is, that the Courts
of the United States adopt and follow the
decisions of the State courts in questions
which concern merely the Constitution
and la VS. of the State. Upon what ground
could the Circuit Court of the United
States, which tried this case, have depart
ed from this rule, and disregarded aud :
overruled the decisions of the courts of
Rhode Island. t4
Undoubtedly, the Courts of the United
States have. certain powers under
5he Constitution and laws Of the United
States, which do not belong to the State
courts. But the power of determining
hat State Government has been law
July established, which the courts of the
State disown and repudiate, is not one of
hem. Upon such a question the Courts
IT the United States are bound to follow
he decisions of the State tribunals, and
mast, therefore, regard the charter govern
nent, as the lawful and established gov
during the time of this contest"
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island, in
5he trial of Dorr and others, had already
decided that the charter government was
lhe lawful and established government.
Now, the decision of any court must be
viewed in reference to the specific case
before it. What analogy is there between
The QUESTION which would be presented to
The Court in case involving the question
If the power of Congress to pass the mill
tary bill for the governmental of ten States,
md the question presented in the Rhode
Sland case.
In the former, the question is presented,
# the power of Congress to prescribe o
Military government for ten States, and in
he latter, it would be question of which
f the two sets of Representatives and
cnators would be entitled to admission to
he Senate and House of Representatives,
nd under the broad grant of power to
ach house, ito judge of the qualifications
its own members" it has never been
QUILTED that in such case, Congress must
which of the sets of Represen-
Itives must be admitted, andAs an Incl
ent to this, which of the two Govern
tents is the lawful government and en-
tied to representation; and when the po-
tical status of the State is thus establish
by the decision of the State court and
Y the act of the legislative department of
lie government, receiving its Senators and
representatives., it is not in the power of
le Supreme Court, by its adjudication, to
Terturn the government thus established.
hief Justice fancy says, in the conclud-
g page of the opinion of the court in
e case of Luther VS.. Borden, speaking
the power of the court under the Con-
tuition: sci ~,
/" The high power has been conferred on
lis court, of passing judgment upon the
It's of the State sovereignties, and of the
gislative and executive branches of the
ederal Government, and of determining
neither they are beyond the limits of pOtoer
arked out for them respectively by the
of the United States"
10 is this very 'poaCer Of the court, "-ad-s
Tilted in this very decision to exist in the
)urt,-that we believe it is the interest of
to invoke, to protect the rights
the State and the liberties of the people
ereof from the dangerous usurpation of
ent of the government. If our appeal
lould bein vain, we will at least be in no
orse position than now. Sit. .l..
But is said we are conquered Territories,
Id must submit to whatever the conquer
may dictate. Have the powers of the
been enlarged, or changed, or rs
tered by the fact that the government
IS suppressed what Congress itself term
rebellion. Has the division of powers
1der the Constitution, into legislative, 3
lecutive and jucicial, been obliterated,
I'd all power merged into the legislative
apartment, because the government has
cceeded in quelling rebellion?
These questions must be answered in the
firmative, by those who claim that Con- ~
.ess may pass any form of government for
e rebel States, aye even military gov !.
nment, and continue it at its pleasure
re those who advocate an accomplishing =
in the Military Bill, and or
lnizing under it by the sovereign Con-
,ntion of the State, prepared to admit
at we have no government exceDt what