The weekly North-Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 186?-1869, 1868-02-19
GEeRGIA ;AsD MISSISSIPPI N0N-syiTED Ia
i3slsI, sdf u. g.SUPREME7 CfT;lT, as,,., b

In the Supreme CourtH of the United
States, yesterday, Associate Justice Nelson
announced the opinions in the case al the
State of Georgia against the Hon. Edwin
q NJ. Stanton, Secretary of War, Gen. Grant,
eand Maj. Gengu Pope. The last named, ut
the time .he billwas filed. was cnInmamling
. the Third Military District, cdimpase,l of
Georgia, Florida and Alabama. designated
by the act OF Congress approved March 9,
1857. for the more efficient government of
Ethe7 Rebel States TIE bill filed by the
State OF Georgia prayed for an Injunction to
restrain the defendants fr,ni Gcsirrying ipto
effects the several provisions int .tliese2acts.
and set 6artlpthe existence 0fsGeorgia as one
Of the States Of the Union; and further, that
ION tile surrender of the Confederate army in
1866, at the ctosssef ftheiriyibwar, that State
Il was in the possession and enjoyment ofa
the rights belonging to a State in the Uninn
under the Constitution and laws of the Uni
ted States, and, as such. was entitled to re-
presentation in both Houses of Congress. -
The bill further sets forth that the intention
and design of those acts of Congress were
apparent on their face and hy their terms
namely: the overthrow of the existing State
Government ,-and the erection in its place of
another not authorized by the Constitution :;
and that, in fnrtlieiance of this intent the
Secretary nt War. Gen. Grant and Maj Gen.
Pope, acting under orders from the Presi-
dent, were about setting in motion por
tlon OF those statutes to take military pos
session and subvert the government of Geor-
gia, thereby suhjecting the people thereof to
to military rule; that the State was Who'll
ly inadequate to resist the power of the
several Departments, and therefore insist
ed that protection ought to he afforded
by decree of the Supreme Court in
the premises. The bill next prayed-lirst,
that the defendants nj sht lie restrained
from issuing any order, or doing any act or
thing within the State of Georgia, injurious
to said State. or which might be required of
them by the act of Congress second. to
cause the defendants, to delay the registra-
tion in Georgia, as prescribed in the last
named act; third, to restrain them from ad
ministering or causing to he administered,
the oath or affirmation provided for in that
act; fourth, to prevent an election, or tie re-
turns in any such election. from being re
ceived according TO the acts in question !:
and fifth, from holding or causing to he neld
any Convention as prescribed therein. AS
ciate Justice Nelson. having set forth these
premises, sala. in substance, that motion
had been made Ivy counsel for defendants to
dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. and
as one without precedent. 1t was ciainr'l
that the Court bad no jurisdiction in the
case, either of the subject matter in the bill
or over the parties represented. the first
ground was supported by the argument
that it was political and not judicial
question, and therefore it was not subject
of cognizaRce by this Court. The dstinc-
tion between judicial and political Questions
resulted from the organization of the Gov
ernment- Executive, Legislative, and Iu,i-
cial-and from the limitation OF the powers
of each under the Constitution The judi
,cial power was vested in the Judicial lie
partment and the political power in the
other two departments The distinction he-
tween Judicial and political power was 81
generally admitted that the Court deemed it
necessary ~ do nothing more than to refer
to some of the authorities on tie, SUI ;iIct.
They were all in one direction. among item
the case of Rhode Island against the State ri
Massachusetts. II had been supposed that
this case afforded authority for hearing and
deciding. as on questions connected with Il
bill in equity; but ON a close eyamlnatianit it
would lie found that this was mistake !;
there was question of boundary between
these two States. and not one of political
character
In the case of Florida against Georgia.
the United States were allowed to intervene,
being the proprietors of large portion of
lands situated within the disputed hounda-
ry, ceded to the United States by Spain, the
State of Florida heing also interested as Il
proprietor. The case bearing most directly
on this one is that of the Cherokee Nation
against the State of Georgia. A hill was
filed in this case, and an Injunction prayed
for to prevent the execution of certain acts
of Georgia against the Cherokee Nation
The latter claimed the right 70 appear in
court as foreign nation. The acts of tie
Legislature. if carried into execution, would
have destroyed the tribal condition of the
Cherokees, and subjected them TO the au-
thority of the State. 1t was therefore. de-
cidcd that the Cherokees were not a foreign
nation, in the sense intended by the Consti-
stitution of the United States. Chief Justice
Marshall said the bill was untenahle on an
other ground namely 1t involved q politi-
cal question Associate Justice Nelson re-
ferrcd to several other high authorities in
support of these views, and showed that po-
litical power did not belong to the Jldici-
ary, and the Court could have no right to
pronounce merely an abstract opinion Of the
Constitution, or of State laws. 1t might
however, decide on all statutes properly tall
ing under judicial authority. BY the second
section of the third article of tile Constitu
tion Of the United Stvtes it is provided:
>. ,ft" The judicial power shall extend to all
cases in law and equity arising under this
Constitution, the laws of the United States
and treaties made or which shall l,e made
under their authority. to all cases affecting
ambassadors and, other public Ministers
and Consuls, to all cases of admiralty and
maritime jurisdiction, to controversies tt
which the United States shall be party. tr
controversies between two or more States
between State and citizen OF another State
between citizens of different States, betweef
citizens or the same State claiming lands
under grants, o. different States, and he
tween State, or the citizens thereof and for
eign states, citizens or subjects"
The bill filed by the State of Georgia pray
ing for an injunction to restrain the defen
dents from executing certain parts of the act!
OF Congress, being apprhensive that iniur,
to the State would thereby result: hut &C
cording to law and precedent. in order t.
entitlc parties to relief. II case must he prop
erly presented for the exercise of judicia
| powers. and the case must refer 10 the right,
OF person and property. and not to politica
questions merely. which do not !elnng t,
the judiciary either in law or equity. Ii
view of the principles which under the Con
stitution and the statutes which the Court