Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-08-03

mower Is not MneTenL uoI iiSSS sSet - tsAA .
dental to a court of justice, even Of general
jurisdiction. For in England but q single
one Of several courts having general juris-
diction, possesses the authority Neither
the chancery, the common pleas, nor the
exchequer, though classed ngShe kings
superior courts, and having general Jurlsdic-
ton. over the realm, can exercise this power.
It;issthe peculiar privilege OF the kings
bench alone. Our circuit courts have mere
" a local and subordinate jurls dlctl on.----
Their analogies therefore with the four
courts of England, having general and supe.
rior jurisdiction, must be very weak, ana
still weaker their claim to the pre-fmlnent
distinction of the kings bench, which pos
.esses solely the exclusive authority of lssu-
ing the nandamus.
For these reasons am induced to helieve
from, the best consideration have BEEN en-
abled to give the subject, that the circuit
court of South Carolina had not authority
70 Issue nandamus to the collector d the
portof Charleston.
It is scarcely necessary to remark, that
when court has no jurisdiction, even epn-
sent will not give it, and much less will the
mere tacit acquiescence OF a party, IN not not
denying their authority.
independent of this serious and conclusive
objection to the proceedings adopted by the
court, there are others entitled to corsldera-
ton. For supposing the court did not err
in the exercise of Jurisdiction, and admitting
the British doctrines on the subject without
restriction or limitation could be extenied
to this country, there are legal exceptions
to the course they have pursued, supported
by English authority.
In the first place, the law gave the colect-
or complete discretion over the SUBJECT
According to the opinion he might torn, he
possessed competent authority to grant, or
refuse clearance. And apprehend where
the law has left this discretion III an ohcer,
the court agreeably to the British prctlce
and precedents, ought not to lnterPoss, by
way of mandtlplNs.
Secondly. In this case there was con-
troulinp power in the chief magistratep t the,
United States. There was IN tact, mex
press appeal given to the president y the
very words of the act of congress, which
authorises the collectors to detain vessels,
g until the decision of the president OF the
United States be had thereupon.D Blythe
mandamus the reference to the Presldaat Is
taken away, and the collector IS comnaISded
to clear the vessel without delay. Agrea-
BY to the English authorities under such
4,:.....astance. il ie .,nt tbA course helie..e
70 issue mandamus.
Thirdly. The parties it seems had their
legal remedy against the collector, ana 1t is
not usual, if not unprecedented, to grant q
mandamus in such case.
Fourthly manelanus is not issued to a
mere ministerial officer to compel him to 90
his duty. The court viii leave the parties
to their remedy by action, or even by IN
dictment. In England in very late case,
they decided that they would not grant a
mandamus to ministerial officer, sueh as
the treasurer of the county, tor the proper
remedy was by Indictment.
| am aware of precedent In wnich IL
seems to be admitted that mandamus may
issue to the commissioners OF excise 70 COM
pei them in proper case to grant 'esiih'. ,
This case is more analogous 70 the one no"
before US than any other | have Deeh a &C
to discover, after diEgent research. DAT
in this instance the point was not made, hoI
the question argued. Besides the commits,
sioners of excise in England form a BOARD
for experimenting the collection OF that
branch of the revenue. They constitute IN
many respects court of inferior Jurisdic-
ton, which in particular cases takes cosnl-
zance in summary way, of offences a.
painst the excise laws. A mandamus might
be granted to such a tribunal when 1t would
not be issued to mere ministerial officer,
acting under them in collection of the reve--