The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1867-04-13
CHI A ES TON.
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 mlsunder'
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
rom putting into execution the provisions OF
the Reconstruction Act, upon the ground that
the Act is unconstitutional-the demonstrations
atty Of the law consisting in this: That these
States are now and have always been States OF
the Union, not responsible in that capacity Tor
the unlawful acts of their individual citizens,
and that the provisions of the Act contravene
the rights of such States under the Constltu-
ton, and are beyond the powers vested in Con-
gress by the same instrument.
Now if in 1860, New Yerk or Ohio had made
before the Supreme Court precisely the same
motion, that the State of South Carolina was
State of the Union and had no right to secede
therefrom: that the President was about to
prevent this action by force of arms, and Con-
gross had by law raised an army for that pur-
pose, and then calling upon the Supreme Court
TO enjoin the President and the COMMANDMENTS
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
Would she not have maintained
l. That the question was political one, and
extends beyond the judicial functions of the
Court.
=. That whether the State had a right to
secede or not, was q 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,
rs we had the right to secede from the Union
of our own will, without the consent of the
Union, so we have the right to 60 back of our
own will, without the consent of the Union?
If we had not the right to secede, then our
act was revolution, aside and beyond 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 secede, then our sepa-
ration was both de facto and ae jure, and how
in the name of reason CON 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 that conquered uss -
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" -