Year: 1863

On Monday, November 9th, 1868, the
Supreme Court, sitting at Pittsburgh, Pa. ,
rendered decision in the matter of the
application of three drafted men belonging
10 Philadelphia, who filed Bills in Equity
to test the Consttutionality of the Con-
scription Act The applications were for
injuncions to restrain the Government
officers from sending the compliments
into the military service. The Court de-
cides the Act of Congress unconstitutional, g,
aud grants preliminary injanctions in each
case.


Knecdler Us. Lime, and others. Smith
as. Lane and others. Nichols Us. Leh-
man and others.


OPINION OF CHIEF JUSTICE LowRIE.


These are three bills in equity wherein
she plaintiffs claim relief against the de-
PENDANTS who, acting under the Act Of
Congress of the Sd of March last, well
known as the Conscription Act, claim to
coerce the plaintiffs to epter the army of
the United States as drafted soldiers The
claim OF the plaintiffs is founded on the
objection that that act is unconstitutional
The question is raised by motion for q
preliminary injunction, and might have
been heard by single judge. But at the
request Of our brother Wood ward, who
allowed the motion, and on account of the
great importance Of the question, we all
agreed to sit together at the argument
But we are very sorry that we are left to
consider the subject without the aid of an
bnbolf oT fha { h,r
The proper legal officers of the Govern.
ment having deemed their duty not to ap-
pea.


For want of this assistance | cannot feel
such an entire conviction of the truth Of
my conclusions as l would otherwise have,
for I cannot be sure that | have not over.
looked some grounds OF argument that are
Of decisive Importance. But the decision
aow 10 be made is only preliminary to the
final hearing, and it is to be hoped the
riews of the law officers of the Govern.
ment will not then be withheld


We have, however, much greater diff
fcuiy in the decision of this question, ant
one that is quite inevitable. 1t is founded
on the fact that the question has become
question of politics, and the great par
lies of the country have divided upon it
People have not awaited the decision o
the courts on the subject, and could not bt
expected to do so but have studied ant
decided it for themselves, or have rallied
IN opposing ranks, in support Of leader!
who profess to have studied it or have done
50. Our own history shows that our courts
have DO moral authority adequate tc
being such divisions into unity. Tha
sort of authority requires a much large
degree of mutual confidence between th
courts and the people than is usual in ou
experience, especially in times OF popula
excitement.


All men believe themselves impartial il
the decision even of party questions, and
therefore, it is imI ossble for them t
abandon their decisions on the mere au
thority of any one, unless when they feF
that authority to be final. Partially i
such matters seldom proceeds from an
dishonest purpose, and generally arise
from giving undue prominence to som
purpose or idea that is, in itself, quit
proper, and, of course, this is usually dor
quite unconsciously. In times OF excit
ment it is quite impossible to avoid thi
ard hence in such times moderate vey
arc very sure to be condemned, and eve
Government itself, in all its Department