Year: 1868

OF some persons, that the concurrence of Con-


gress was necessary to give validity to the action


of the President the Chief Justice went on to


say, as follows: s'Whether the act of the Pres-


dent was one which required the concurrence


OF Congress is question into which We need


not enter; for, taking it to be so, Congress


has, IN many ways, recognized and confirmed
the action of the President in regard to
the reorganization of the State government


by filling its Offices. No other need be referred
to than the joint resolution by which certain


amendments to the Constitution of the United


States are proposed to the Legislature of the
State Of North Carolina, for adoption or rejection


thereby recognizing the Legislature as a lawful


body, and, of course, recognizing, in like manner,
| the Convention under whose authority the MEN,
bers of the Legislature were elected &c &c'
Here, then, is clearly expressed opinion of
the Supreme Court that North Carolina was, in
January, 1867, State in the Union. This
must have been SO, otherwise the Court did an
act of gross injustice in ordering Hughes to be
delivered up to the agent ofthe Governor of New
York for the purpose Of being carried back to
that State. Art 4, sec. 2, par. 2, provides that
"A person charged in any State with treason,
felony other crime, who shall fee from justice
and be found in another State, shall on demand
of the Executive authority of the State from
which he fed, be delivered up, to be removed
| to the State having jurisdiction of the crime"
1t is thus seen that the Constitution of the
United States confines its provision for the sur
| render of fugitives from justice to cases occur
ring between the several States, and neither had
the Governor of New York right to demand
nor the Governor of North Carolina right to
surrender, Hughes, unless North Carolina had
been as much State as New York.


| That North Carolina had been completely re-
organized as State, in January 1867, was also
settled by the case of the State VS. Bell, l Phil
Rep 76, in which the question was whether the
Convention which sat in October, 1865, had the
power to tax Merchants who did business in the
town of Beaufort between the 1st day Of January,
| 1865, and the close Of the war in April or May
| Of that year. Beaufort was at that time in pos
session Of the Federal forces, and the decision
turned upon the question whether the capture
| and occupation of the town was the capture and
| occupation by the Federal army Of foreign ter
rtory, or merely the suppression Of the rebellion
in that part of the State. The latter was held
to be the true doctrine as is shown by the fol-
lowing closing language which used in deliver
ing the opinion of the Court upon that point
''1he capture of Beaufort by the military force
| Of the United States was not, therefore, the con
quest by foreign enemy of the territory of the
State OF North Carolina, but merely the sup
preston Of the rebellion in that part of the State


and when afterwards the State was rehabilitated,
its loyal Government was restored to all its
former powers, including the power of taxation,
all its inhabitants in every part of its ter
ritory. This view is fully sustained by the opin-
ion of Judge Sprague in the case of the Amy
Warbeck, before the United States District
Court of Massachusetts, and by that of Judge
Nelson, Of the Supreme Court Of the United
States, in the matter of Jones Egan, on a writ
of habeas corpus" Here then we have the case
of State, admitted by every department of the
general aud State governments, to be invested
with all the rights, powers, privileges and i'm
munities OF one of the States of the Federal
Union, and ask where Congress got the pow
er to oyerturn the government of North Carolina
or lntermeddle with its domestic administration!
| defy any man to show any rightful authority
to interfere with North Carolina, any more than
with New. ork or Massachusetts.


The Reconstruction acts of Congress were pas
scd after January 1867, and am aware that
Chief Justice Pearson has recently written and
published letter in which he asserts their va
lidity, and seeks to sustain his assertion By de-
caring that, ''if these Reconstruct on acts are
void so the Reconstruction measures of
President johnson, and the negroes are still
slaves" The Standard newspaper, OF Aug. 26,
audes to this declaration, and asks with an air
Of triumph, whether it is not logically true l
respond to the question, and assert that it is not
true, either logically or otherwise 1t will be
recolIected that the Chief Justice had, long be-
fore his letter was writer, pronounced judlcialy
that the State of North Carolina had been recon-
| structed by the act of the President and that
such act had been fully confirmed by the con-
current action of Congress His argument must
be then that Congress had the power to recon-
struct the State second time. Is that the line
of the argument? If so. | should like to know


how many times Congress has the right to re-
| construct the State. and whether it can ever be
considered as finally reconstructed ''lf the
| Reconstruction acts of Congress void, are
| the Reconstruction measures of President John


SON" says Chief Justice Pearson. IF the Re-


construction measures of PresidentJ johnson were


valid, as the Chief Justice and [ have both ad-
| Indicated, then the Reconstruction acts OF Con-


gress are necessarily null and void, say |, and


prove it thus: Ifthe Legislature grant tract
| of land to one person, and afterward grant the


same land to another. will not the latter grant be


void because the first grant is violated? And
will it not be perversion of the rules of logic


to say in such case that if the second grant be


void. the first must be so too? OF such reason


ing nothing less can be sad than that it is man
| ifestlv absurd The case of second State grant
is precisely the same in principle with a second


reorganization of a State by the President and
Congress Chief Justice Pearson, in his letter,
admits the authority of the decision in the case
of ex parte Hughes; that is, he admits that North
/ Carolina was, at the time when that case was
before the court, completely recognized and


restored to all the rights aud bound to ail the


duties Of State In the Union, and being So
| defy him or any other man to show any authority