Alexandria daily gazette, commercial & political. [volume] (Alexandria [Va.]) 1808-1812, 1808-08-03
.araanrta DAILY 6a,ftte.
20 NUMERICAL md POLITICAL.

The tollozving official opinion Of the AHor-
ney General Of the United States has been
traasmiited to the different collectors, for
their government.
SIR,
/ HAVE read and considered the
papers and documents referred to me rela-
tive to the case of a m0adanrls, issued by
the circuit court of the q. S. for the dis
tfict Of South Carolina to compel the coll
lector of the port of Charleston to grant
clearances to certain vessels.
The first question that naturally presents
itself, is,whether the court posssssedthe pow
or of issuing amanddmns in such case -
A mandamus in ENGLAND, is styled apre-
rogativc writ, and in that country is award
ed solely and exclusively by the court OF
king's-bench.
The constitution and laws of the United
States establish our judicial system. 10
these we must refer in order to ascertalnthe
jurisdiction of the respective courts, theex
tent Of their powers, and the limits OF their
authority.
The eact to establish the judicial courts
of the II. States, passed on the 18th Sept.
1889, declares and defines the jurisdiction
of the several courts thereby created, and
among these the jurisdiction or the circuit
courts. Upon careful and attentive pc
rusal, it will be found to delegate to the cir
quit courts no power to issue writs OF rGn-
daaus. In the thirteenth section of that act
this authority is expressly given to the SUI
preme court Of the U. States. In like man
ner it is specially provided by the act of the
Sd of February, 1901, that the supreme
court shall have power to issuewrits OF mdn-
daosus. This las. act having been repealed
and the former revived, the question must
rest on the true construction TO be gwen to
the original act.
The eleventh section defines and limits
Ire jurisdiction of the circuit courts. 1t IS
specially appropriated to this single object.
There are no expressions IN this section
which can fairly be Interpreted to confer the
ssathorityof issuing writs OF mandamus.--
Nor can the power be either implied or IN
ferred from any language it contains. It's
true, the. proceeding by maaeam'ss IN Eng
land is on the crown side, as it IS termed, OF
! the court Of kings bench. But it is prose
cution relative to civil right to enforce II,
and TO obtain prompt redress; and not to.
punish criminality as in the case OF an Of
fence qroSsio mt, therstGEs that ado the
a, rs &C ali crimes and offences cognlzable
80 s The authority of the q. States, except
..,5e,' he art OTHERWISE brovides, sc" can
,n.s,ras.s.e such proceeding. Besides the
same actdoesprovide that the supreme court
shall issue writs of mandanus. An autho-
rity given perhaps because its jurisdiction
extended all over the q. States.
The fourteenth section, Immediately sac-
ceeding that which gives this authority in
plain and positive terms to the supreme
court, solely, if not exclusively (and the
affirmative frequently, and in this case just
", think implies a negative) contains the
following provision. s'All the before mem
stoned courts of the u. States (including the
supreme, as well as the circuit and district
courts) shall have power to issue writs Of
seire fac;as, habeas corpus, and al other
writs not specially provided for by statute,
which may be necessary for the exercise of
their respective Jurisdictions" This clause
cannot affect the case, conceive. The
nandamus is writ, which we have seen is
specially provided for by law. This section
was evidently not designed to give any addi-
tional jurisdiction to either of the courts,
but merely the means of executing that iu-
risdiction already granted to them respect
lively. The issuing of a mandamus in the
case under consideration was an act of ORR
Einal jurisdiction. Precisely as much SO,
as it would have been in the supreme court,
to have exercised the power in the case of
Marbury VS.. Madison. In that case the