Year: 1867

CoURT.-Acting Attorney General Binck-
ley, under date of Aug. "a, has submit.
ted to the President very long opinion
in regard TO Gen. Sickes interference
with the execution OF judgment OF the
District Court OF the United States,
Chief Justice Chase presiding, under his
order No. 10. After reciting at length
the circumstances OF such interference
and quoting a paragraph OF said order
prohibiting the enforcement of judg-
ments on DEGREES for the payment of
money on causes OF action arising be-
tween the 10Th OF December, 1850, and
the 18th OF May, 1865, the Acting
Attorney General argues at length that
the judicial power OF the United States
is vested anterior to sll the laws OF
Congress by an express provision OF the
Constitution. A similar grant OF juris-
diction by General Sickles must have
appeared ridiculous, had such been in.
serted in his order. The Acting Attor-
ney General refers to the announcement
OF the Chief Justice, that it was incom-
patible with the authotity of the
National Judiciary to sit where mill
tary authority existed which could
impede its process, and that it was
solely in consequence Of the fact that no
such military authority then existed
that he felt willing to hold that court.
He submits that the case is one Of those
which lie within the provision OF the
statute in force for the punishment 6
persons who ebstruct the process of the
United States, and is simply the case of
high misdemeanor legally contem.
plated. He then proceeds at great
length to argue the supremacy Of the
Court under the Constitution over the
military authority, and cites numerous
authorities to support this position and
define the scope and extent of those
powers, showing by them that when.
ever in the territories OF the United States,
irrespectively OF persons or circum-
stances, 8 matter Of controversy arises
which is distinctly comprehended under
any one of the clauses of the Constitu.
tion, and which is in such posture as
TO be susceptible of judicial action, it
mast go without adjudication, or else it
must be sdjudicated by the Courts OF
the United States. This provision being
organic, 1t is beyond the legislative
power, If that could be supposed to ever
have made the attempt, to refer the
adjudication OF any one such cases,
against the consent Of the parties or in
derogation OF the power of the Judiciary
to the Executive power or to any power
or agency whatever. He argues that
the action OF the Judiciary would be
wholly Intellectual unless the result in s.
proper case was conclusive aud binding
upon other branches Of the Government
and the entire people OF the country.


The control over the proceedings is
control over the Court, the Judges and
the parties. This would not be control
ling, but abolishipg the Court. He ar.
CUES that Congress cannot abolish the
Judiciary districts, and that its power
cannot go beyond modifying and chang
ing from time to time, as in their wis
dom may seem expedient, the organiza-
tion OF the Courts and the division OF
the country into Judicial provinces, but,
having vested the judicial power, which,
as We are instructed, Congress was
bound to do, that body cannot have the
power to vacate a Judicial tract. He
then proceeds by citations from acts of
Congress establishing and defining the
Judicial district Of North Carolina, its
status by these acts and allotment OF
Justices Of the Supreme Court under
them. 1t is shown that whatever under
the Constitution Of the United States,
either of authority or of jurisdiction, at
taches to the districts and circuits as
they stand in the same statute book, was
intended to be and must be, deemed and
held to be OF full force and virtue now
as heretofore.


II 1t be admitted that the judicial
power is intact in the district Of North
Carolina, though the subject matters of
its authority are limited to category, it
is certain that upon those subject matters
the Courts OF the United States for that
district are the supreme authority of the
United States. He further argues that
the judgment OF such Court is one of
the rights OF persons and property which
the commanding Generals of military
districts are bound to protect and enforce.
In this view, he says, the error of Gen.
Sickles reaches the full stature of a per-
version of authority, which, if persisted
In, must Immediately acquire the charac-
ter of the crime of leyying war against
the United States, an undertaking which
could not for moment be imputed to
the deliberate intention of an officer
honorably distinguished for his gallantry
in defense of the Constitution. In this
as In any other matters there may have
been doubt as to jurisdiction, but it
would insult the intelligence ofthe CON-
mander of the second reconstruction
district to inquire whether or not he
supposed he was authorized by law to
forbid the Supreme Court OF the United
States from hearing causes affecting the
inhabitants Of the States of North aud
South Carolina without his consent. We
must take it for certain that Gen. Sickles
could not, when issuing his Order No.
10, have contemplated disputing with
the sworn authority Of the Supreme
Bench. 1t is equally certain that IL he
had been disposed to ascertain his au-
thority through adjudication by COM
peten. court decision might have been
procured with the greatest facility.


The Attorney General then proceeds to
show that Gen. Sickles in interfering
- A.