Hide Article Text (OCR)
IS PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY*By Isaac M. Brown,PUBLISHER AND PROPRIETOR.Office.—Near North East Corner of the Public Square, Washington Street.Terms of SuhscrlptloiiiOne year, invariably in advance,. -$2. SOSix months, u . lt;* .. i 50*Three months, 75SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA.i Captain of said company, which her longed to the command of said Hughes; that, on the 6th of October* 1864, the said McCormack received from General Hughes an order to select twenty five men from his com-| pany and report with them at once to the said Captain Day for duty; that, in j pursuance of said order,; the said Me-,Cor mack, with other defendants, whowere members of his said company, ! did report to the said Day, who, be-I insc the senior officer, and designa-1 *! ted in said orders, as the commanderThe Case of Andrew Humphreys —The Act of Cong ess Sustained, authorizing the transferof Certain Cases to the Circuit Court of the UnitedStates.Samuel McCormack el als vs. Andrew Humphreys. Appeal from the Sullivan Circuit Court. Rsyj ChiJ nslice.of said expedition, did then assume• vcommand thereof, and did, with said force, and in pursuance of said military orders, arrest the plaintiff and take him. to the city of Indanapolis,which are the .supposed trespasses set out in the complaint; that said arrest was made peaceably and without force or violence, and in pursuance of the said military orders, arid under the authority and by virtue of the laws ofwas done or committed:,5(Jqring.£he (then) present reuellipp,/^ andj uja.der color, of authprity,.fderived* from;/or,: exercised .* under*• the: President of theI r VUnited States. : Itmakes out a con*/pletc defense .. to jtbe: sjiiL ondorstjbe fourth section of the ^act. It thus.» *presents a case arising under an act ofCongress, and admitting; the allega-ti on s'., of the petition to be true; the only question for the court to determine would be whether or riot the*, r c -fourth section of the acts of .Congressfest,that tli}s judicial,' power of* ib.e* United States, is unavoidably Ja some* * • ** * i * -J J ' s ( 1/r L' « ’ - * - ' - P'-* T1eases* exclusive of.all State authority, and in all others may be made so at• - • ♦ •...lt; . . / . *4 * , t ; V ^ */ . • v 4 * * - ' •the election, of Congress. *i . . I , J(( Ij . J' o^ ■. • i ‘. iYet if ;the4,constTnct|Qh contendied forr be correct.j [-that the appellate power conferred by the, .Qqnstitution does, extend to cases ^ originating fn. State,Srcourts, and within 'their iurisdiction*t . . s * .. ft,. i\ , * I., y. - !Ti*the constii.utionaUty of: ther5thsec-tion has beeni settled by such a train of decisions and so necessarily* followsfrom7 numerous .decisions 'of the Smw -was constitutional.The appellee, Andrew Humphreys, j the United States,, and by .the order filed his complaint in the Circuit Court I and authority of the President of theArticle 3d, section 2d,‘of the.Con-;* iirbut only to; cases originating inithe inferior Federal courts,] it;will;followthat as the plaintiff may always/elect*the State courts, the-defendant mayalways ;be.,deprived of all the. securitystitution of the United States, pro-J which; the. Constitution fi/nended .inI - * .ft, * , . r ,rides that The judicial power (of the aid of his rights/ To :pbviate. tinsUnited States) shall extend to -all diffi.cnlty,; we^arp, referred;tO;4be.pow• • • • • * ^ . j ■. i *»cases, in la w aqd* equity, arising no -1 er which it .is admitted, C ©Tigress pps-,*' ■ * i ’ ‘ : I ' ' i , I . * ■*der the Constitution, the laws of the I sesses, to .remove, suita from fthe;tat§/. ’ ; t % k ' 5 ' , 5 I . / * ' ** ;1 1 * . * ^ k . , . . ^United Slates, and treaties made, or 1 Courts to the,National Courts.? ...which shall be made, under their au-i4The.existence of this power of.remp-• - -- • ’ V i* ; ' t Ml* i* I % 9 ^ u ^tliority; to all. cases affecting embassa- familiar in Co.urts acting- acccor-prenie Court r«cfr the United States, that its pfofcracted discussion lt;would be » work i of stipererogatioii. --Hodg-8onw* vs. Milward .3 ' Grant’s, rcafees (Penn.) ilSpub 418;' Jone^ vs.?Steward, 41? Barbi (S.- G i) 270; Mdrtih vs. Hunter 1; Wheat * 304; Cohen vs.Yirgiriia 6, ib. L246/--; S ' ! ; T, ‘ Wef knoiv of no case in* which it ha§i bdeh held- by ^a’ny . Court of final resort* that tlTe/'Stk section 6f the act of 18631. was unconstitutional. X5nthe:eoritrary, we believe thafc a major-; ity%f the Judges of- the Supreme Cburt of the United States diave upon the Circuit affirmed1 its'Vklidity .^ - ! •f ftdors, or other public ministers .and•» - ' - . • ‘ ) . . • t i ‘ * e 1 j 1 r' *consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maratime jurisdiction ; to contro-.diqg.to.the course-of the common law,,^ . -* X# . * . , ^ * , . .1. . I . j « .....-in criminal as well as civil cases, and• ,..*»• * * * •* v.ait is exercised ..nsrwell befare. as after* * * ' * ,•* . v *- - ' - * • 1 » A*-, a jversies to which the. United States ] judgment. ;I3.ut didsisaUyaystdeem:of Sullivan county, on the first day of United States.The defen dents the.] offered to file aFebruary^ 1366, against Samuel McCormack and ten others for assaultand battery and false imprisonment.The complaint contains four para-•mgraphs, charging the assault .^nd battery and false imprisonment in different forms, but for the purpose of this appeal it is not necessary to note theirtobond with two sureties, who were named to the Court, conditioned that they should file the^process and other proceedings .against them in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Indiana, on the firstpoints of differencelay of the next session.After the overrunning of the de-The allegation of the complaint are j fondant’s potion to remove the causein substance as follows: That, tlxedefendauts, at c., in Greene county, on the 7fck day of October, 1864,made an assault upon the plaintiff,_ * - • *and arrested and carried him by forceto the United gates’Court,, the cause was continued pending a rule for an answer. At the next tcyiR a defaultwas taken, and the plaintiff’s damageswere assessed by the jury at $25,000, to Luiton, ia said county, thence to for which sum judgement was render-shall be u party; to controversies ! ed,. in both. ,cases, .an exercise, of. ap-v ,v peUftta. original jadsdlaj;tiq.Q.f- If.thgaj tlio riglit^o^rejnoval he j included; in the oprelate ju^isdictipti, it/which the United Slates siiall■ ■ . rf.. f ' * ‘V:' * f r'# i - j| j ‘be a party; to. controversies between.. : i . ' ; , • ; i:. i;u! Jr.two or more States; between citizens; * - •«*' • i[’ i ' ' ‘ U * f'*of. different States; between citizens.of] is. only.because.,itds. one. mode of exrJ . - . ' - I , ' . y . . - ( I »..«/,• .• i J . I»: • i - w . ■But we think the validity of the 5thsection*'df the dct ‘of Congressmsiy ber~ *sustained, without reference to the 4th' section lbt the act. ' * . ci *r.t In October, 1864, the armies of the1 .. / ) 1} t* * • * ' * ■United States were in active service • ***'n .Ti; - \in.,the licltl. . Tp sustain these, armie.s,the ,Government was drawing supplies both of men and rmaterial fromjh.isthe same State claiming lands under• ‘ ” . 1 ■*/•* v ii r tgrants oi different.States, and between. * * ‘ \ V ; - *1 x 1 .a State or citizens thereof, and foreignStates, citizens, or* subjects.”, !It has been decided .Iliatea, case* ! ’ - • 5 : ■' ' 1 .* % i .4.arises, within the .meaning;.of this..prpr vision, as well when: the defendanterpising tliat:po wer ; fa nj) . as .'Congress • is* not limited {,by ,the .CopsfiOption ,tq, any,particular; mode or. Jimjs.of;exer-cising itj. /itanay apthorize. ^ remoyaJLseeks protection under the laws ofeither ..before or; after, iudgment.- /The*.» - w. J * vi . ' * 7' J O • . ^ •*'-'**+ 0 4. ^ *•• *time, aud thQ.nvanivjr, tnust-bq spbjec.1. to itjS .abg,Q.lnte legisl^t.ive cpo tppl.”. .. /The fifth? section .of. the.act: of 1863Congress, as when a plaintiff comes] b^s heen repeatedly.,hpld -constitution-Jourt to demand some right con- Mr.*;justice/ Davis,,of ihe.-Sp-* . ; - ° • / lt;t \Cohens vs.r Virginia,Sjtate. KIts .officers ifere;acti.ye -iii.prp*.curing* enlistments,.of.recruits for the• AJ ' ..Lit * * * • • • * l * »**.'. r ' ‘ ^ * ’niHitarj service., . Whhout these §up.i plies from- the country in the rear of tha.arm.ies, it was impossible.to. carry forward military .movements or to'* hi u, :. . . *» » • -.* * -presceute, the war. .Prisoners.of. wari : / 4. /- » . * '• * *4 * . * * *Wetq sent by the military officers in coihm^nd pf; ourjforeea in the field,-toseats a- question’ “ arising ? under the*.constitution” of the United States, forthe: power to do the act must besought in the constitution, and, whether that instrument authorized it or not, is. aquestion;of constructioni and of- that question;; the. j courts of; the- United States raav, under, the .authority of theconstitution and the law of Congresstake exjelusive jurisdiction. The comr plaint and the petition in the record before us present such a question for determination, and Congress lias claimed for the courts of the United Slates exclusive: jurisdiction to defcerr mine it. . The.recitals and avermentsThe purpose of' the act of. 1833,was to place nthe jurisdiction' over, these questions between individuals and revenue: officers in the circuitcourts of; the United States, to the exclusion of ^tate* courts, and we think the present case is one which falls directly within the provisions of that statute.”of the petition prove the act complained of to have been executed under orders from the military commander in*; this district, by soldiers andmilitary officers acting in the military service of the UnitedEStates ; that act was plainly done under a claim of mHilary authority and discretion vest? ed by the constitution of the United States in the- President. The con-Sb also in the case already cited cf Wood* v. Matthews which ivas an action of trespass for taking a horse, begun in one. of the State courts. The defendant, by a petition under section3, under the, act of 1833, removedthe eause to the United Slates circuit* ■ »- . .'court, where a motion was made to* ’ P W \ ■*AIareyonabbstfuetioa of that |instrument,:as, the source; and^ limit of. the executive war power, will sustain or condemn the act. - : .! * •anonanItha( in o fore teacsma con day moi wlic ed ilt;iSullivan, and theace to Iheeity of In- ed by the Court.dianapolis, where lie was confined and imprisoned in the government buiid-into Court ferred by, law,6 wheat 264..p re pi e,Co art of. the United. States., .so1ruled in the ..transfer of :4hc case ofA* iMi 1Thcoase then presented by.fche $pr.. :i pellant’s .petition,, « arising: under the ] y The defendants.moved to set aside the tL .. . Tt . i 4 ? 4 i Claws ox the umted.* .States,. ..comes 1default and* pKlgment for the reason, ing for a period of three mouths; that ^ ^ ^ Conrt lja(1 erredoverrniirig the motion of the defend-lie was removed from thence to a jdungeon in the Soldiers’ Home, *vhere | ^ tQ rc“ra0VG the caue he was confined for a* further period j of three months. The arrest and im-dprisonment are alleged to have been jThe appellants contend that the court, below erred in overriding thewithout probablecau.se, and the ex- mot'bn to remove the cause to the' peases incurred in procuring liis re-iilease are particularly enumerated, further appears by the record that on the 8th judicial day of the February term, 1866, of the Sullivan CircuitCourt, the defendants, by their attorneys, first appeared to the actiomand moved the court, upon a petition then filed, which was duly verified by affi-Circuit Court of the United States, and they insist.that all proceedings,ofthe'Sullivan Circuit Court, subsequentto the filing of the petition and the offer to file a, bond are erroneous.‘The;application to remove the cause to the United States Court was basedupon section* 5 of an act relating to habeas corpus, and regulating judicialdavit to remove the case; to the j proceedings in certain cases,” approv-A.thou. vs.. Morton,efc. al., decided in• . 4 i • • 4 i * - „ ■ . ; ! * « : ✓ '• . . • ■ \ 41.864, ..in;uthe.f United . .S.tates Circuit. * -4 S V • ’ i U» i,.? .1 . * 4 j ■ ' * • * »-■ * . - . • . • - . V ‘ T *ourt for the district of Indiana... .• «r,.It was a suit by. Athonvthea.Seere-within the verj^language of the con?*;stitution, which in express terms,-cpn-1 Mo;r,tor), Gpv-fers -upon the United. States courts jn- ernoA*,, pudr.ilVobh'.,, Adjntant ,Genera],‘ of, the State of Indiana, to recover fees■ a » k . * T * * ’ * * . . ■ * i - .nsdiction., The ^p,Qvar of Congress to provide for the transfer hefove judg- j 'Yhich the j]]aiiUifi claimed as,;$ecreta-■ * ‘ ' * ' ♦ ■ * ! r . ' . t. ‘... J •: J Si I * ^ ni *. • •ment of cases which fall within iu-• * * : , J ‘ . r : . * + . V1 * » *Iigdietion of the courts of tha UpffedStates, cannot be questioned.., Tt vvas provided by the act of 1789, that suits commenced in any State coar;t against an alien or by a citizen of .the Staley pi .Statq, on, military .commissiona9 lj ( . ; * - * ( » 1 ' , * ^ » • * i * *issued by the defendants, without the alteration, ofthe Secretary or seal of the: State., ’The case.was brought.in.the Gourt• . - . * •. l : . *■ • * :4 * Oin which the suit is brought against aUnited States Circuit Court for theDistrict of Indiana,” which motioned March 3,,1S63. U. S. stat. at large, vol. 12, p. 756. That section is asthe Court overruled. The defendants follows: “That if any suit or prose-excepted to this ruling, and filed their cution, civil or criminalf;ha8 been orbill of exceptions which was signedby the Judge. .The following are the allegations ofthe petition: That; on the 7th of Oc-# • . « .• . ... » wtoher, 1864, the plaintiff was an active member of a secret political organization called the* Sons of Libertj7,*”that said organization contained aa membership of seventy thousand in Indiana alone; that the objects of the organization were to raise and equip an army, and then, by a general uprising, to seize the United States arsenals in this and adjoining States, release the rebel prisoners confined in the military prisons, and then to cooperate with the rebel army for the overthrow of the Government of thecitizen of another State, etc., should upoh -petition be thus transferred. The constitutionality of this provision has; been repeatedly declared. The jurisdiction depended upon the citizenship of the parties do the action.* By fclieact of -March- 2d, 1833, called theforce bill,”.provision,was made ,for: the removal before judgment of :cases.The:of Common. Pleas.of Marion county.' : * ♦ - - ■ i . ; v. . : w; ,lt;An application , by the..defendants, to removerthe cause to-lhe United Statesarising under the revenue laws.shall be commenced in any Statecourt against any officer, civil or mil- j jurisdiction .oi the United. States*ifcary, or against any other person, for any arrest or imprisonment made, or otlier trespass or .wrong made or committed, or act omitted to be done, at any time during the present.rebellion, by virtue or under color of any au-thoritv derived from,.or exercised by* 4 ' * .or under, the President of the United States, or a.uy act of Congress, and the defendant shall, ot the time of cn-teiing his apperance in said court * *. fiiecourts, under that act, as under the.act now under * consideration/was/of the subject.matter of the. suit, a.nd didnot depend upon the parties..*United States; that the objects of saidorganization, were .unlawful and irea-. ’ ^ f# * * 5 lt;• sdnable; that the plaintiff, being fullya petition stating the; facts and,1 verified by affidavit, for the removal of the cause for trial, atThe act of 1833 provided that in aay case where* a suit or prosecution shall be commeuced in a court of ^any State, against any officer of the HLFivit-ed States, or other person) for Or -onaccount of any act done tinder the Revenue laws of the' United States,1 ortender color thereof\ or for or on ab-* • * ,count of any right, authority or title'* - *set up or claimed by subh officer, -ofthe next term of the Circuit Court of any other person; tinder any stick lawCircuit Court,;'under the.apt of 1803; \y;as sustained. The ground^ lor.the application was that the;commissions were jssue.d ;undetr:a .law of. Congress,,; I njlhts Uni led Stales -pireuit Court a motion: was^piaderto .-remit/.the case;to. the State Court, which was overruled, and -jurisdi^tjou * of the case was rc-j-tai.ueibby the,.United,States Court,The Supreme Court of Ohio, in the: case Tod.-Relator i) s. Fairfield J Common Pleas, a case which presented; the fderaiqal./question before us in this; record, carefully *yeviewe.cl the. subjectand sustained -• the. :section of the lkw/c and awarded; .ar.mandafce to the Judtremilitary camps, wjthia'this. State:, to be guarded and’ securely; kept. Un-. der these circumstances was it the.duty of the President or of the military*/**..-• « • * . * . t - . * ... 4 ... • .• W 'officers in command of this military distjrjctunder.hirn, to permit a hostile organization (asi^ * alleged in. the per, fcition) to :h.e. formed, armed and fully organ zed, ;-fcoi: act in the iuterest of ■ebcUiou, and byv:force of' amns to attempts; thoj rehaae.pf the prisoners pi war, and the destruction of the Gov-That such a defense: as is^sefc forth iri^the petition filed in tha circuit court of'Sullivah county presents a'ques-tioh arising under the constitution ofthbdJnited; States, was held by Mr. Justice Nelson of the supreme courtof the Unitetl States,-someyears since in an action of trenpaso against, commander Hollins, brought in the New;York common pleas court, qa behalf of the owners of property destroyed by him in diis bombardment of Grey-townr Nicaragua. The cause was removed into the circuit* court’of theremit the cause to the state court, for want of jurisdiction ' in • (the_federalcourt, because the action did npt proceed from or bring in question ; any act or thing done by the defendant as an officer under the revenue Jaws; of j 4eff the United States.. In overruling the motion, the court say: Whether thehorse in qriestion tvas in truth siezedl i .and taken by the defendant, in the exercise of his duty as ari officef'bF the | mot*** » * ^ ( i ** » .. *customs, iinder the' revenue laws^-as set forth in his petition for the rerno-val of the cause, is a matter of fact,’ belonging to, and forming a part oftlie merits of the case. It is involvecihen1 iiit,in the inquiry whether the taking and detexitioh nrere lawful and justifiable,and must be determined; not in a sura-• * ♦mary way, on motion and affidavits,contradicting and denying the facts-so« *•stated, and verified in the requisite form, but on trial of the merits in the usual course of proceedings.In holding that the circuit court of the United States for this District has3hisof 1coiyoi]iipof the Common -Pleas Court, ^directing:tlie'cause. nTSfOhid St.:;R. 377.j iThe -Supreme/Cotfrt^f New Yorkin the;case 1 of Pister- vsi- Butleri sus*^ tained ' tliei application' under the .act of ■ TjSS3, t.fdr xonioval. .This case is not renorted. * 1 •crnmeni?. : Miist, the•.;military ;!.:com-manderavait for au actual attack upon the military ;campsi?‘ Musk he depend upoiv’the courts: to guard his -prison* era of war placed ■ within his charge ? Must: lie ^permit the supplies ;of;,menand provisions to be cut off, and the*country in the rear of our armies- tobe! occupied by hostile forces ? 'Must' he wait for the blow; to fall, or. may he seize the conspirators while they are collecting their forces and preparing to strike? These are grave quea-' tio;ns that may invplve not only the’ liberty ori men who, while claiming.to-b‘e;peaceable citizens, employed iu c-ivrl pursuits,: were, it is;charged, rengaged in secretly organizing a hostile military movement for the destruction of their Government; but the: decision-of* these questions may also coni; com the future Irfe'of the nation. *•» *the United States, to be holden in the* ^*district where the suit is pending, and offer good and sufficient surety for his filing in such courts on tlie day of itsof thc United States, it shall be law-advised df the treasonable character of j session, copies of sucli process,” c.,said* organization, accepted the ap-pointmenfc of ’ Brigadier Generaf in the military part of said organization, and had assumed and exercised tlie powers and duties conferred and imposed upon him by the rules of saidorder as such'Brigadier General; that,* •at-the time aforesaid, Brevet Major General Alvin P. Hovey was, by the direction and appointment of theand also for his apipearing in such courts,” c.; ‘ifit shall then be the duly of tha Slate court to accept thesurely and proceed no farther in thecause or prosecution.” ■ful For the defendant to file*his pdtri tion,” etc.; -a and thereupon' it slihll be the duty of the said State court id stay all further proceedings,etc.-r(UlS. StaL, vol. 633)vJ ;If this provision in the act of J 1833 is coiistitui-Doesthe Constitution ‘ of the■ ■ . *- . .* - . : / • j w iUnite 1 States authorize the courts, ofdie United States, under appropriatelegislation by Congress, to assumethe jurisdiction conteiriplatec! in this United States,; in* command'of tlie j sectionDistrict of Indiana; that on the 5th of iOctober, 1864, the said Iloyey issued j J£h» 'folirth :scflon o{ the, act of Zailt vs. Maxwell, 2 C, 0, S,^ ^ „ , . T n - t-v j. March: :3d, 1863 supra, providesan order to Captain John W. Day, { , i * 9 f - that,any; oruer of ihcs President, or# *tionalj there can be no question as’ t6 the constitutionality of the same provision of* the act* of: 1863, •wliei'e^'as in the case !under; consideration,v the petition presents a complete defense under an act of Congresi3;^,,,,'* That* the * provision cited from'tlie act of 1833 is Sralid'andeffective, hasbeen--repeatedly ' recognized. Woodvs/ Mk:hcws, 23 jVt. R. 735. VanTwenty first Indiana Yolunteers,commanding him. to proceed to Greene coiint}% and arrest, the said Andrew•* * ■* . »-• It -s . ^ »•Humphreys; yrilir the* assistance* of a [♦ M ~ ^ •• - - ' r j * % * ■ • •*. • . rforce to|be turned over.to him by Major General. James Hugliffsy wJio was then commariding the Indiana Militia in that part‘of ’tho State; that by said4 .» # ' V ^4 , r' /order the said Day was further direct^ ed4 to bring 5the ; said HriraphTeys a prisoner to The Tieadqhartefs of theunder his authqrity,r made 'at any. time during the existence of the rebellion, shall be; a defense ;in ;all courts1 to any [action, civil or criminal, pending oi;to »be commenced, for * any Berireh,seizure, arrest or imprisoametrf, made, done or.comniitted or actspmitted.top s lt;- % * *said Hpvey at Iqdran^p'oliand : for the'force necessary to Execute eaid order the said Day whs reejuired to call upo.n/ Geii’drai ^HrigKes; that at1 thet|^fe‘ af6fe?aid the defendants were all. . . -■.* /lt;? ‘Oil’m 1.. •' *members or a ube.clone, under or: by virtue of suchan .oider, or under .or:by virtue oflt;■ *any law of Congress,*and such defensewmay be made by specXal plea, or* under/the general issiie;”' • iThe petition is Tri fbrrii* and allegar* ii ^4r 1company, pv-under the* .«. . • .defendant, Samuel McCormack, wstion in full corapliauee ..wijth the re-;. ■ t i* ti ; * t ~ -• v ft. -• , t j * •* i »A » 1 « •Jr' j~ * i . ■ T r j J1 i v A f J . - \ ■ 'auirements of the 5th section of the;, • ft: :: / li ,at;a:;; 1 . .. . *.■ :t,-act ofr Congress.; It was filed on en-! ; i , i fr i •• *.•'' V- *i ^ i . . *. - * ; *■ ... *tevrnc au appearance to the suit. It:-u :•* *•?:i/; ;■ i »/*:*.', . . ♦ • ;* *..lt; ♦ :n *■. ; ; .*.avers facts, which, if true, show that« the trespass or wrong complained o f421.' !: iT: ? • *' • ; i ;* J : :In tlie case f of Freeman vs. ilohin-:'* * ' r- T i * 1 • V ';:a 'son, /.Ind. 323. whicmwas an aqtion1• ‘ * ' ■ ;• U-- V-.; U v“;:»?!* jof trespass for injuries .coramU^d by-Robinson, who was United Statesv ♦,?:*: }#;;'» 7 .*.***; 'Marshal, on Freeman, while the lat-|M : •/ •lt;.' -rivvUi‘/-r }ter was in custody as a fugitive slaveythis court saul: Congress m*iglit. no1doubt,, have given, an action m the-V ; r W :ii j ;f ederal Uourts against an officer ofthe General Government, for a per-:.'ir.-U/ ■-.• \sooai injury done under color of of-hce;. but we are not informed that itka Lvrvr: .P. out •has done so. etc. “AsCongress liasV *• ' t*'* ‘ \ lt;4 ] f *?^f*#%, *not legislated on the subject of thisaction, wp do notlsed tliat u is pofisi*ble that.'there should bo kny cb^tflict’ , ■ • lt;■_between the Federal and?. State fa-t ♦lt;4thorilies.”* r: •In Martin* s.vIIuntofl'6'i\7hcatrr'Il;878, Judge Story says: “At is manUA;decision iri favor.- of ; Jbe;rigbt ;6f rdiuoval, uuiler. the law of-1S8H, wasraade by. Ballafd.i «I| in'.tbci case-qfa. « «Milton' vs\ Wilguso fn:the United. StatesCircuit5 Court for the Distriet of Ken-tii'eky. have the opinion in.man-qsprip.t from, tha: learned.:; Judge wlio*. *dfllivered ;it, and extract: the (followingparagiapUi^fc-.;:. • 5. Vli-.dasiiot.. consider i.t-sareocisiry.jtodiscuss.; ihilly e con^tiLutioji^lity .dftkdStlt^cdtion ofcifibeiact of-Marcbi3d,* * .•183,3, because'ita«eohstitfttionalitjr-ha^ ^fcbeen ridmpuktl ihy joPunseb :o£ dhe :plaintiffiyi:B^ bXrTin^y?8ayi;that rwhateverirdouhi:ofcAlifficulty I J.baye r^jpecfcingdlie constitutiquftlity. .of thei 4tfo hectron/T halve /toonreh jspectlirg the.5thv*: Fof err jo n ri'At•Oongress cau amike r the oeder fif the -PrfeiUeat^a jn^tifi^6ktion;fai, -any seirch:seizure; atrest/otimpr.isonment, /made ^during itho: rebel®oby ibhl ideanc-thht;4hlitf1sr vftM they^sttem^teditodprinl“ “ T-thel4^hfhocixbnaxoj iuvioids Lnt: ol; Congress, 'under J the***• constitution, has tlie power 4o; lt;-declare wa^,” arid/ i ‘Ho provide for callingJ forth the .mi-' ■ 4 t .1 iti'a* ’ W sup p vess! i ri^ur recti on/ ^ The-executive power of the government is: ve'sted in the PresiSent rby const!-/ tutibri^and?he is-made dhe commands er-iu:chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militiV of the several states when jCUedrintq the service of?' th® . United States..,Whea^Oongress declares* war; by: thatdeclaration it puts in Jorce the laws*of:.war;: and tbe w.ar,powers..,of tl;e* » Lgovernment, which are not Jo bo ercisedamdetuthO’.eQnUtutiQn^in JimeUnited States and argued on the point raised that Hollins was acting under orders from his superior officer, the’ President, and was therefore nat liable to the/plaintiff. • To lhis, it was replied that;tlie President had no pow-. er to declare wav, and that therefore the acfc'oEithe President .and-of IIol-exclusi ve jurisdictioh of: this case, we do not pass upon the merits of the action, and defense, as presented; by the complaiut and the petition.. There is a court having jurisdiction to determine that question, and, the removal of the cause to that-tribunal is notedthesidknitheA.ne:rliris was withouk ehow of authority. The court,:.on full consideration, ruled that the decision of tlie President was final, and justified Hollins in the execution of his orders. ; Amer. Cyclop.1S62, p/512 4 BlatcH G. O. R., inpress. '• . 'But it was insisted that .aa.the appellants were not mustered into the service of the United States, the act was riot therefore done under color ofThat the demand for as-authority*.sistance should have been made upon the Governor of the Stab, and the order to/ the defendants: to- act shoulda denial of justice. * *lt; • • »The judgment is reversed, with costs, and all proceedings subsequentto'the filing of the petition are set\ w * 1aside, and tlie couft is directed to:pass upon* tire sufficiency of any bond.that may'be offered under the law of Cou* gress, and if suc’h bond be approved^ to proceed no further in the case. *rnatheer.thesirhave come - through- Hughes to himIt is sufficient answer to say, that the defenilants acted under the orders of: Best Variety of Poultry.• Dorkius—Gray, silver gray,. spec-lde. and white Dovkins; Excellent farm yard fowls; gbod layers aud-set-tei's; very good motherj not calculated for confinement, but are nnequaled asa'table or market fowland very la.vge. Bramah Pootra—An invalued fowl.hainstinbeioiEIlnglies, their superior officer; and that he claimed to act, .and thereforer * #did act, under color‘of the authority df the military commander* of the District of Indiana/ ‘Whether theof peace, now came irifcoffulb force,Snff:are*to %e:‘eieiiiiSed5 by'the Presbw t rdent and..Congress.. After .the decla-, *lt;v.-r-jf■?., .• *; rr :- ., o.»• .«v?,*v;-:v;r atio,p, of war, every, ;act *p; qarryrngon that war is an act done by virtue of the constitution, which 'authorized. . G f*t-hoLiWar! tq,; be;- comuiencad..,,,^very measure of Congress and every exec-■utrve aet'per-fotmed Uy-the.Pyesident:, intended and calculated to -Carry that/gTI a* -;i; I vr. -:odiujiuI*i4;Aiii:rs.war to a successful issnfe, are acts acmeunder the constitution, wlietlier the act or tha measure bo'Xor .the raising ol fmoney,to sup.noi t the aimie^, or a -360-iT-rr/ sd l —.Lf. Mo i xvkim/1,Jaratiou of jreectom to fill their mikssfli voi /;-vg//r. jj's.q'jroll v*.^4-wsiikepT,%e»«;, wlicfiher .il Je..U^p Qigjini^ation of m\litajy tnbpp^sto AnAitiis’equally clearithatallipac-:aons clairiring/therfp roteoti© n ^Qfinthis provision have the right to havp-fisi:po,nsti{iltioiialii% .'deterifllijfitl.t iflifj tlipCourts of the United States. Wl.p.tk - ervt iptovisipajisj on ■js t u ilionaltis.a; qubfetioQ’.-ar^viig)Q^jjeraitfee CopptituticMiiia dyeingf§ej.Uxljfi?A»Q t3?tlii.chrhyj the, tel-y'' (tQrp\B'/t)^-fkc.Cons^itMianQtihe! udjfliallftpweB United States cxt$i4slt;ai iitlt;is pxpqiselsuch a t[viesiion as can not be finallydecided in aStat^Couf t; and'precise:•’’ne: 7 mi’t. , :1-y mb, tp**; wtomright to lave renioyad!' vto!-*tUj^,'J@^i^ddo tts traitors, ..or tl.iQ ^destrqctio^ of;JJfintr-yi yv)lt; sitXv. “ • -jfp •t.heyr^rpper^ by thp adymunng army /-aw* «? 1 I '» • . . WJli* '/i I * * ■ V \r ' X !li f.li!without due process ot law^ and the-/o;n;prn U'Sr'validity of suck .acb must be detfer-W.? 107 , iLS' ■ 'iNjZ/n-mined by the constitution-. Haying’ r.,%l t'* f* 4 9 ;bv the constitution the powerto’iierclara war, i fpllp.wec that, in the lan-i03..0inxa .U/fU. .-jiivofi L\ ne of .- hiel-Jusfi MaVsliall^ire rc r'tijiBri'tifcil:; cti Cv •linis'J f* “ Covsrew must.p sess the choice c■‘J7/J ■■?*■■■ : 21.:m ftrauo ..J'sIT HJj'-i-OjIt:tl'L aVrt'in AnSdhmVwy means* which arc ip fact conducivetii . - A *-»/*!?) it ?*!■'»** ? Vi rlt; rt \) If Ji : .♦.•4 .-ca\. .it K* .i. * I 'j 0 ■ 4/* • .# J d I*-’*-* ^4-1 ‘JLiStates Court for decision. Besides;i wo tin v-id.iL/: it rt t vA/rFisher' i3rahch, 3. , When, thcVfe?iVrjinriZzsa jjfii nr ~ atlt;fofe, it ife .sought to hold any dfficer 6rl ere on It au 1 p for any-, apt of war a one. | .ff lit,; I J if' J ' -it 7 hr 'f * f *• •under the ordei.:rQf . Pwsulont,, or. under aiiy iaW 0/Congress/it prer» * % military criirimahder had the1 power tocompel Hughes to act or nfot; is'uotimportant/ as he submitted tb:hisrmriders and acted1 under them. .jFHe base, 9 « . • of Vari Zant vc; Maxwell, supra, tie-*cides what the words under color of.* f ** . r t ,authority” used in the acts of 1863,as Well as in the act of ,1833, included. ; In that case an action was brought in1 tile' supreme court of $Iow Y^ork to recover a part pf the proceeds of merchandise condemned Tor a?:breacli ofExcellent layers; perfect sitters andmothers; so hardy, that they can behatched and reared in any vveather.—*These birds, bean any .confinement, arid as winter layers^ excel all otherbirds. vuplermythe {fhvenue: laws,; Which the plaintiff claimed to be due him as the informer upon whose/ informatiph the/ goodswere'seized/ The* detehdant, Who Was at thef titne * collector of the. port of Nw'York/ brought a certiorari underthe :fchiM section' of the/ act of 1833,«peril whiciijltlie cause^wae mov^d tinto the circuit court of the*United iStales:Afteti holding^ that the - act of/withr kbidirig * • the Mo riWy cl aimed ifrom./ the plaintiff wae at least cpldmhlyr an offi-ciaTkct irM jwitlii a •: Tthe ;stal yiteV Be^fcs: v Nor 3 o=w e - accede-16 jthfe Argument of tha.rpIaiatffi’aLcgftpfQb.ihtit:,tbe defendant ca6uQt(,: tiijrasfer;•.tliisi.cause.Hto this,court,; focithp.re^qi?4. » *•/ ' . •ith^t ihoiis a'dugbt Ua ibo; jOhftrg# in-; it■ Iias-a wjpong-dopiv in/i wjtUholdiug gio-ineys ,t.o fwhifchLtiie Jilaitttiflfi W : jegallutl'ii niTh'aJ ydoctnuQii woul4ItllejJjroy^sions.Qf tl?p..act;pf lS33,r fio-3C5mse,:Uiu:-pyery ,case ; oC.prp^ecutiQn.ScPcrgoetor ur^jothe/ royei^ei0Cfi^er,. thetactiftn s,eeks .fo^cha^ge such-0fil9h,r,-,WjUU; s.-persona/ .foram S.^s«.i;ted 1 o ha.y.abeeA ^p^atviyji;i'fully and ] y-ithouf „ aut/ority.^o/ law.! Espepiali; 5M»- LtMWSftj thejeolieclplv-v 'ourJke is -iued-to yepQ.yer lt;fr©iii Ei®AutiQP,^ed,and exacted.oh thehii^gQliisaalwaya cha5gQ4 AftL* f;Wion8n4??,r»Si' ’Black : Spanish^-Yery handsome bird—the - aristocracy of: poultry. Lay larger/eggs than’any other breed, and in great riuneber;; thrive .in any locaTityj however confined; do n.ot sii:; tbeir crilor is suited for any atmos; pliere* - • - - v .. ,Cochin Chiria-r-Seern to prefer a very limited space; capital layers: vOry hardy: seldon or never /out / ofcondition; good sitters; chickens very easly reared;.the pullets are hatched jn the spring, and .go.od winter /layers.• • ■ f- s ,- 'Hambuigs—Very handsome birds; unusually gobd layers; bear moderate coufiaettfenVwell; do- not sit;- most/tractive ' of lawns. .Varieties;burgand' Penciledi.*Spangled ^ HitHambiirgs. • ;; .Poiands/i^eiSiarkahle ' ■ handsomebirds; Verff; fh *' l/ers/ but hbh sitter/-unfit For lon'dKehien^Vkjief ifei’;doiden a'n^'siI'yei* Spatfgtet, attd blackwil’whitelop-kfiojt/ :' I '•?Bantams^Useful to those* wlio are:ld r; £i.an51uvwa::»Keeping ti tion'to those ^who li;a\le1 iMf [*:'J very)irriited siiace at command,^trid differ-;liiriited space . .ent varieties ofWams FW6fi»icommend. The principal, kmds aregoiden and siNer-laced /; sebrights,?* u dijf ;same,,blackaud whjite^and Japanese. Ducks—^For table use exclusively,;,tlio Aylshury.stands first on1 the 'list.,i • t - rt •. ,^4 j i 1 i* J ,*♦. i ■ *. »* * »;• - « ty «J i .it attains early 'maturity, -ani ' lays.when nb others do; The xioucii is a reill-V2I'-honiiiJaUimark ably '‘handsome *d uckV ekaritl fro-... .. v. ,1! •tertheValfwestostoaty°ypmeI \*teltheaSIVcJ?I , **unM '1 ;wllbuihcleu% t »micoiwothe'/ i;on‘•'■'tiLdoUiVifath t.Jnetsembling the wild in both * sexrii.JS'[uscoyy du(As4 are too^well(,anday'IsayuiUavorabjy?) .known to neVd' de*, . J ' A • }.• 1 ^\;r -• i f'-i ‘ 4 r*#v (Si ^ *\l\ *r : h?/11 *' •*;scripuou-— Cor. tVfc’ -. '$. P ; :// u*: ‘ 'J7 dooxh wj un i. •’\(V. ^ H'} Zj/n Oil ii V;for.h av^ng ybbt# ned;4n^w i4lh^e ld^pj oneys, bmangiriS rVp/tPP,vihick ‘he had iib' righi' ^icd©ihu,5''i r,n-.iphe; Snpreiniei iCourtl.; haSfch'a; tx-it‘ hasinp po^fsrjifo ^iiseliarg9;eni'-‘listed men-from the army on w rits pf' habeas: corpus,’ uridc^;ii; jlea d f lt;«t\nor:;-the .enlisfBdiut-. oJ I$ttiinJ + ife1.en;Mii'Mdabo
Newspaper Details
Sullivan County Union
Sullivan, Indiana, US
Wed, Feb 27, 1867
Page 1
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 11 Jul 2020
Other Publications Near Sullivan, Indiana
Sullivan Times
Sullivan Evening Times
Sullivan Democrat
Sullivan Daily Times
Sullivan County Union
