| Main text |
Holtermann maintains, and as it appears, as his chief argument, the wording that the executive and legislative and judicial powers cannot be joined under the governor, and that accordingly, it is unreasonable that he should dictate an alternate punishment according to laws he has himself promulgated and where courts have judged which are established. – However, as it concerns the strict separation of the 3 powers, Holtermann appears to have had in mind republics or constitutional monarchies in the constitutions of which such separation constitutes an essential element, however, under Your Majesty’s absolute rule, such argumentation is, to say it mildly, unsuitable, for whatever authority, great or small or of what sort, the governor exercises, he exercises it by what by Your Royal Majesty, who is the wellspring of the law and the privileges, has delegated to him, and that it should be the like in every case whether he decides direct or according to judgement by courts established by himself has no basis, for in the one case, action is taken according to specific and publizised rules and in the other action could be taken according to the law; Holtermann has certainly insinuated that there is an inconsistency in the fact that the power which established courts to judge on fact or generally subsequently exercised the right, by resolution to either apply the punishment or to modify the judgment, but he has not dared to say so as in many military cases this methodology of process is followed and in the end , according to our constitution, the judgment of the supreme court is proposed to Your Majesty; besides, however, by express rules, the governor’s power to decide in cases he procecutes, of which there certainly are more than those where he only establishes the court, is certainly as prescribed, namely in police cases, in negro cases, excepting, however, the carrying out of capital punishment, and in ecclesiastical courts, and not too long ago, lieutenant general von Oxholm has received Your Majesty’s supreme approval of his decision of the case of the obstinancy of the free coloreds, where, by extraordinary process appointed himself Chief Commisary. –
Finally, adding hereto, is the fact that if there were a basis for Holdermanns claim, then, absolutely no punishment could be applied to him in a case where a citizen looses Certificate of Citizenship, for the civil courts could hardly rule on the case, and likewise, also everything he says concerning that when he considered the Militia Law as ruling, or the governor as competent, had he exercized caution, shows his behavior as subject by answering obscurely, for to play fast and lose with laws recognized by society because one believes to have a valid personal objection, instead of immediately voicing his doubt in the appropriate place, can, when a case is of such importance that the internal defense of a slave colony is brought into question, in and of itself be punishable. –
For the above reasons, I consider |