Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1869-10-19
THE YERGER CkSE--MxEHTARY
ANN f,Vvna UaU

'"t ,, N~bAS Up pSLOAe INC supreme CONT
of the United States on Friday, and after
argument by Attorney General Hoar and
Mr.. Carlisle, the court adjourned to yes
terday The present argument is upon
the jurisdiction of the court, but Che tele.
graph states that in an editorial'in its issue
of Sunday, the Washington Chronicle
admits that the court win grant the writ
and thereby declare The reconstruction acts
of Congress unconstitutional, and thai
paper adds: eff this be done, grave
duty win devolve upon the Executive.
What this grave duty is we are not in
formed. This case came--up before the
Supreme & Court during the spring
session, and was postponed by CHIEF
Justice Chase to the meeting this
fall Gen. Boynton, the Washington
correspondent of the Cincinnati Ga.
zette gives some interesting incl
dents attending this postponement. Il
seems from his statement, which possesses
an air of truth, that after the argument
had been heard, the Chief Justice, when
gathering up the papers and references
bearing on the case, which had been col
lected by his direction, asked if the case
decided in Baltimore by Chief Justice
fancy during the war was among them.
On being answered that it was, he then
inquired whether the particular form
of writ issued in that case was among
the papers. He was told that it was.
With these various documents he
then retired TO make up his decision.
The correspondent goes on to say that
these inquiries were taken as conclusive
evidence by the counsel on both sides that
Chief Justice Chase had decided to grant
the writ as he could only want the form
for the purpose of copying it, and as the
Baltimore case was somewhat similar tC
that of Yerger, so far as concerns the
power of the military authorities over
civilians. Attorney General Hoar, at any
rate, posted off in hot haste to see Gen.
Grant and inform him of his fears thai
the Chief Justice was about to render {
decision which would have damaging
effect upon the constitutional force of tht
reconstruction laws. 1t is stated that upoI
Gen. Grants own special request, Judg,
Hoar besought Yerger's counsel to allow {
postponement of the case until it could b,
decided by a full bench-or in othe
words till the October term of the Su
prcme Court. To this request was adde,
a stipulation that in case the military Fri
bunal, then trying Yerger in Mississippi
should return verdict of guilty, the ex
ecution of the sentence should be stage
until after the Supreme Court in regula
session had disposed Of the application 70
h0bcas corpus, The correspondent pro
cceds:
"Thus armed with supplications an
promises, the ATTORNEY General again me
the counsel for Yerger, and the Chic
Justice, this time together. He first nd
dressed The counsel. To his proposition
Mr.. Carlisle replied that his client was il
military custody and on trial; that h
would probably bc found guilty, and
the delay occurred lac might be executes
before the court convened. This ObjeC
ton Judge Ho3r met by repeating the a.
surdnCc The President directed him L
make in his name Mr. Carlisle then SAT-
he greatly desired TO have the case decided
but Win The promise made on the part o
The Executive regarding the prisoner Ia
would not make any positive objections
lei The case 60 over ne WUUu HUJ UTITuJ,
his wishes. With this Mr.. Hoar tune
al once TO Mr.. Chase, and said the qucs
ton rested then entirely with the Chic
Justice. He then went on to urge III
wishes of the President upon him that s.
important a matter should be heard by
full bench; and that as the counsel for tn
prisoner in whose behalf the proceeding
had been instituted were willing to rest tn
question of delay with him, both the Pres
idcnt and the Attorney General hoped tina
the Chief Justice would not insist upOl
hearing the case alone. Thus cleycrll
cOnered, there was no way consistent witt
proper respect for his Associate Justice
but TO submit So, on the verge of de
cision which both sides believed would re
suit in the granting of the writ the suo
scqucnt discharge OF Ycrger, and the viz
tual overthrow of military authority in tn
South, the agreement TO postpone the cas-
until the Supreme Court met was formal,
made
There seems to have been no incOnside
rable amount of anxiety on the part o
the Grant administ .ation with referenc,
to this case, and particularly in regard t.
the serious dilemma in which it woul,
have been left had the mOmentous conse
quences referred to in the latter part o.
the above extract been entailed at a time
when the executive department woull
have been without the advice and asSis
lance of Congress. Whether Prcsiden
Grant would have issued an order to III,
officer Of the military tribunal in Missis
s'ppi TO resist the authority of the ciyi
court, as was virtually the character o.
the letter he sent shortly afterwards t.
Marshal Barlow, in New York, cannot bC
either asserted or denied. Fortunately
in the Yerger carse, as in that Of Pratt, the
conflict was avoided. OF course, as the
correspondent says, the Chief Justice
could have done no otherwise than he
did in posiponing, under the circum-
stances. Ii is gratifying to see renewed
evidence in the fears Of the Washington
Chronicle that that jurist is fully ar
rayed against the excuses of the Radical
party. To be sure, he virtually decided,
in the Bowles and AIilligan Qndiana) case,
the principal point involved in the Yerger
matter according TO the same reasoning
that led to the apprehensions of the adj
ministration in the latter; but tyramical
acts of Congress have interviewed since,
and some individuals have charged the
whole court with being timid and indie
cisiyc. Much interest attaches 10 this
case, as The people throughout the coun-
try are looking TO the court to yindicatc
the constitution Of our fathers, and re
buke the dcspotic innovations which
have been made under Radical rule
FEE PEACE Or DEATH.
The opposcrs Of Mr. Johnson insist that