Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1868-03-26
FROM WASHINGTON.
Cabinet Cen.ideratlon.

| rIs' Iussia' Rfiil - ~ 5feA2 .iaNf
FROM WASHINGTON.
~r Cabinet tCOnsideration.
NEW YORK, March 25-The Tribune,s
Washington special says: At the Cabinet
meeting yesterday, Mr.. johnson submitted
| several important subjects for considera-
| ton. Among others was his veto of the
bill taking from the Supreme Court appel
late jurisdiction in cases of habeas corpus.
Resignatfon Rumor.
The rumor is again atioat that the Presi-
dent intends to resign before the conclu-
4 sion OF the trial. slaHl1fe1
The st. Petersburg Mission.
| The Worlds Washington special SAYS :
1t is now reported that Mr.. Seward has
promised the mission to St. Petersburg to
General Banks. The report lacks con-
| tirmation. s'f sssS B f4sEE
! Appeals in Habeas Corpus.
The Presidents veto of the bill to pre-
vent appeals in habeas corpus cases is
completed. was approved by the Cabinet
to-day, and will be presented to Congress
tomorrow -s
The Judiciary Bill---veto Message OF
| the President.
| WASHINGTON, March 25-The President
\ this afternoon sent to the Senate the follow
ing veto message OF the bill lately passed
amending the Judiciary act: ,Fs'
To the Senate of the United States:
1have considered with such care as the
pressure of other duties has permitted, a
| bill entitled IAN act to amend the Judic-
larry act" passed the oath of September.
1883. Not being able to approve all of its
provisions / herewith return it to the SEN
ate, in which House it originated, with a
| brief statement of my objections.
The first section of the hill maptc INV a N.
| probation, as for the purpose of protecting
| the rights of property fiOm the erroneous
decision of inferior judicial tribunals, it
| proposes means for obtaining uniformity
| by an appeal to the Supreme Court of the
United States, in cases which have now
become very numerous and of much public
interest, and in which such remedy is not
now allowed. rA
The second section, however, takes away
the right of appeal to that court in cases
which Involve life and liberty of the citi-
zen, and leave them exposed to the iudg-
ment of numerous inferior tribunals. 1t
is apparent that the two sections were con-
ceived in very different spirit, and re-
gret that my objections to one imposes
upon me the necessity of Withholding my
sanction from the other.
l cannot give my consent to a measure
which proposes todeprive any person, res
trained of liberty in violation of the Con-
stitution, or of any treaty or law of the
United States, from the right to appeal to
the highest judicial authority known to
our Government. To secure the blessing
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, is
one of the declared objects of the Federal
Constitution. To assure these guarantees
are provided in the same instrument, as
well against unreasonable searches and
seizures, as against the suspension of priv
lege OF the writ of habeas corpus, unless
when in cases of rebellion or Invasion the
public safety may require.
1t was doubtless to afford the people
means of protecting and enforcing these
inestimable privileges that the jurisdiction
which this bill proposes to take away was
conferred upon the Supreme Court of the
nation. The act comforting that jurisdic-
ton was approved on the 5th day of Feb
ruary, 1867, with a full knowledge OF the
motives that prompted its passage, and be-
cause it was believed to be necessary and
right. Nothing has since occurred to dis
prove the wisdom and justice of the meas
ure, and to modify iG, as now proposed,
would be to lessen the protection of the
citizens from the exercise of arbitrary pow
rr, and to weaken the safe guards of life
and liberty. which can never be made too
secure against illegal encroachmcnts.
The bill not only prohibits adjudication
by the Supreme Court of cases i'm which ap-
peals may hereafter be taken, but inter-
diets irs jurisdiction on appeals which have
already been made to that high judicial
body. If, therefore, it should become a
law, it will, by its retroactive operation.
wrest from the citizen remedy which he
enjoyed at the time of his appeal. 1t will
thus operate most harshly on those who be-
lieve justice has been denied them in in
ferior courts.
The legislation proposed in the second
section, it seems to me, is not in harmony
with the spirit and intention of the Con-
stitution. 1t cannot fail to affect Injurious
ly the just equipOise of our system of goy-
ernment, tor it establishes a precedent
which, if followed, may eventually sweep
away every check on arbitrary and uncou-
stitutional legislation of the Government
The Supreme Court of the United States
has been viewed by the people as the true
expounders of the Constitution, and in
most violent party conflicts its Judgment
and DEGREES have always been sought and
referred to with confidence and respect.
In public estimation it combines judicial
wisdom and impartiality in a greater de-
gree than any other authority known to
the Constitution, and any act which may
be construed into or mistaken for an at
tempt to prevent or evade its decisions on a
question which effects the liberty of citizens
and agitates the country, cannot fail to be
attended with unpTopitious consequences
1t will be justly held by large portion OF
the people, as an admission of the uncon-
stitutionality of the act on which its judg-
ment may be forbidden or forestalled, and
may interfere with that acquiesence in its
provisions which is necessary for the har-
monious and efficient execution of any
law.
For these reasons, thus briefly and i'm
perfectly stated, and for others, of which
want of time forbids the enumeration.
I deem it my duty to withhold
my assent from this bill and to return it
tor the reconsideration of Congress.
[Signed1 ANDREW JOHNSON.
Washington, d. c., March %, 1868.
l.