Orangeburg news and times. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1875-1877, 1877-03-31
COY. HAMPTON RECOGNIZED EY TIE
SUPREME COURT.

u -ISt. ~ y w llob lCl'icSCiit NONcl
nor Hampton as 4 party to 81 coatro
vcrSy, for wc hold, as iii duty bound,
that the Judgment Of the court Of last
resort Of Il State III 4 cause involving
10 Federal question, but tletcrminablc
exclusively under The constitution and
laws Of The State, legally quicts all
contentious: rs To the issues therein
decided. Tie Supreme Court Of the
United States las established this
proposition as settled law by an un
broken current Of decisions.
That Judgment VIC had the honor to
lay before your 13xccllcncy. The
tile Of Wade Hampton, esq, TO the
Office Of Governor i;dcrivcd lrom his
election By Tie people, and the ehiyh
est judicial tribunal orthe State has
solcmnly affirmed that tile He.
therefore, as the Governor Of the
state Of South Carolina, addresses
your !.Sccllcncy, invoking the action
Of lhc President, not for the solution
ot Il jndic III question, but for the
exercise Of his power rs commrndcr-
in-chiet of the army Of The United
States, to tclininatc an intervention
by Fcdera troops, which hinder: him
i'll the due execution ofhis lawful
authority rs Governor, and suborli
mates the civil to the military autlori
ties.
JUDGE wMIGlir's HEvocArIcS OF MS
Second. We arc informed thai. if is
alleged i'll support Of the usurped
authority of ID. Il. Chamberlain, esq.
and for The purpose Of discrctli,ing q
the decision II the Supreme Court,
which has adjudgc,l Wade hampton.
esq, the Governor Of South C.rnlin:,,
that one Of the two associate nSti ices
who composed the court did, after con
curing in the Judgment and signing
lie final orlcrin the cause, before the
filing oi the same, revoke his sigma
lurc thereto, and did thereby rclnIcr
Inc :aid order void. The presiding
justice Of the Supreme Cours, whose
opinion accompanies the letter O.'
Governor ( amp,on, has noticed there
III tnai presented revocation sapp,ar
! in" III the form d. Il memorandum,
ann .Xcd 10 Il paper entitled an "Opin-
ion b. Associate Justice Wright" but
with no signature attached thereto,
which alleged opinion and the an ,cx-
cd memorandum arc not in the hand
writing Of tie said associate Just .cc
His Honor y j. Willard the pre-
siding Iju: ticc in the cause, filed the
final order therein rs the iulgmcn: o +
the Supreme Court, Notwithstanding
such pretended revocation.
The .o.cnl!ed revocation is clearly
without legal force to annul the jnls
men. Of the Supreme Court. The
Judgment Of q court o!' last re rrt can
only be reviewed by sell. The two
Justices who rendered the decision IN
th" cause constitute lhc judicial mn |,
termed the court. Neither separately
can constitute himself IL court Of re-
vic" rs 70 4 final order made hv III.
conrt IL f"Ar. The Judgment is ihrr
concurrent conclusion. The order is
The statement oiSuch conclusion Not
The conclusion one justice, or oflhc
two justices separately, bat ofhn two
! associated, and constituting the juli
cial entity termed the court.
We deem il proper to note the un
dcniablc facts that the Supreme
Court, which. owing to The illness OF
the Chief Justice, consisted only OF
the two associate justices, adjourned
on Tuesday, February 81, TO meet on
the following Friday, and during the
said recess Justice Wright signed The
memorandum which purpor,s to he Il
revocation ofhis 81 igna nre affixed to
the final ORDER OF the court on the day
Of its adjournment. H., signed the
order February y and the alleged
revocation March /, and since the