The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1871-12-08

CHARLESTON.
I that provision does not give the courts Of the
United States the right to try fer murder OF
burglary or any other felony known to the
laws of the State of South Carolina, but thai
those felopies are referred to in the seventh
section merely for the purpose of measuring
the punishment which Is to be inflicted upon
him who violates that act. They both said, 10
clear terms, that. over the laws of South Caro-
lima, and over the crimes perpetrated In yio-
lalion of those laws, the United States have
no Jurisdiction. Murder, as far as their power
Is concerned, may go unpunished. Burglary,
as far as their power Is concerned, may equally
| go unpunished. They do not try him, there
fore, for murder; do not try him for burglary,
but would punish him Tor violating the section
| because he has committed murder or burglary
Tor some other offence.
Now, first, has the Congress of the United
States any power to confer upon the Judiciary
i of the United States the authority to Try vio-
lalious of the criminal law of State No. 1t
| Is conceded. What is 1t but to try, under this
third count, first, the combination or COZ
spiracy that is one Of the offences charged,
and the perpetration of that conspiracy is said
to be In violation of law OF the United
States, contrary to the peace and dignity OF
the government. Then they go on under the
section 10 say that, in committing the offence
which is thus prohibited by the constitution
/ and laws Of the United States, and / assume
now, for the purpose Of the argument of this
section, that 1t Is eonstitutional, that the par
ties committed some offence which the United
States have right 70 examine and punish;
and yet, in framing their Indictment, they
stated, and they we're obliged to state, that
these parties, In the act OF committing the
offence of combining against the privileges
secured by the act, committed the crime of
and government, aud dignity Of the State of
South Carolina, not OF the United States. In
that particular, 1t is the law OF South Carolina
| they have broken; 1t is the peace and govern
ment of South Carolina which have been dis
turbed. The peace and government Of the
United States were involved In the dret part
of the charge; the peace and government Of
South Carolina, alone, In the second Cause OF
| the indictment.
Now, may 1t please your honors, both Of the
counsel upon the other side say that the inrls'
| diction which you are now asked to assume,
| TO oust the Jurisdiction Of the State Of South
Carolina, then poor man who commits
burglary mny be punished twice, not punished
for the violation OF the section, beg yodr
ed to show you that he Is punished because
he has committed burglary. He has to be
punished first by being confined in prison or
the penitentiary, as the laws OF South Caro-
lima may direct. He may suffer the whole eX-
tent Of the penalty which the court is author
lied to impose. Then after you have him
there under the law OF the United states ior
laws of South Carolina, South Carolina may
take him when he comes out or may take him
whilst he Is In, try him again for the same o.
fence, and impose upon him the same penalty.
Is that Justice, Is that law, is that humanity
God himself has almost written opon the
tablet Of the heart protest against 1t. A
man is not to be tried and punished twice for
the same offence. The object of the law is
fulfilled, the expiatlon of the crime Is full and
complete when heis punished once; yet our
brothers say that he may be punished twice
for the came offence.
/ maintalb, therefore, may 1t please your
honore, II my friends will permit me to say 80
with great confidence, that Congress had no
power whatever 10 pass the seventh section.
These are serious questions, may 1t please
your honors. They Involve the relative powers
OF the General and State governments In very
material respects. They present for consider
alton the proposition whether 1t Is In the power
OF the Congress OF the United States 10 enlarge
the Jurisdiction oil the judiciary department of
the United States, BY trenchiog upon The ju.
risdiction OF the judiciary department of the
there Is not or may not be o conflict between
the two soverelgnties. These questions, as
your hcnors know, have often been submitted
10 the judiciary Of the United States, and in
all questions Unreasonable doubt, where the
court did not feel perfectly satisfied that the
law sHM,ed q ss sssss9n SSesa any fataad aud hhs
accomplished that wish 10 have that settled
by an appeal to the ultimate judicial tribunal,
organized by our fathers for The very purpose
OF settling such controversies. The Govern
ment Of the United States would not have out
lived score of years but for the Supreme
Court of the United States and the support of
the Judiciary of the United States. 1t vas cer-
tainiy the object Of the far-seelng men by
whom that constitution was drafted, that In
reference to the powers ofthe General Govern
ment. and the restriction OF the powers of the
States, II differences of opinion should there.
after arise, how are they to be settled Not
and other nations, but by peaceful, judicial ar
bitraiion; aud court was organized for that
end, holding It's tenure Of office independently
of the Executive and the legislative depart
ment OF the United States-supreme as far as
the powers lodged In hem are concerned.
Now, we are called upon to examine The
validity OF the legislation of Congress. May
not? They are men, and 1t Is q part OF human
nature, and OF their nature, to be at times
mistaken. Various influences may operate
uncu them. In high party times, the exigen-
cit which party demands, with view TO Its
continuance In power, may warp the judg-
ment and blind them to the limits of their au-
thorlty. The President Of the United States
I speak not In reference TO this particular case,
or with any prejudice-the President Of the
United States may disregard, Or not know, the
limits of his power; or, with the view to his
success in a second election, he mag give his
approval to laws not within the scope of legls-
lative authority. A great statutory protection
with us,, and which Is thrown around the citi-
zen, whoever he may be, when charged with
apy offence, is the writ Of hdbeas corpus, by
which he shall have that charge examined.
This must be taken away from him. Con-
press may claim 10 define what Is rebellion,
not TO state what was rebellion when that
part of the constitution was adopted. But to
define 1t, and then to give to the President
of the United States au authority when In his
Judgment such rebellion as they described
existed, and the public safety demanded II, to
suspend the writ of habeaS corpus, march his
leeions Into any State in the Union lor the
purpose of putting down the rebellion. Not
an arm may have been raised against the au-
thorily of the States or of the Upited States;
the judiciary OF both in the exercise, unchal-
lenged, of the jurisdiction conferred upon
them by their respective governments. The
government of the State, iu demanding the
Interference of this provision of the coDstitu-
fyon oo vnrr honnra will remamhar ia that