Cheraw gazette. [volume] (Cheraw, S.C.) 1835-1838, 1837-06-14

the said Solicitor shall so decidt to 6S dnc
to them, for on account Of ony such serricc
or contract.
The Solicitor decided ;hc sum Of SlGl,
363 SO to be due to them. The Postmaster
General has credited them only with the
sum ofSl22, 1Ol IS, and refuses to crc"i!
them with the residue of the sum so decided
to be due to them, being $50, AZ 4"
These facts, not being denied must tor :he
present, be taken 10 be true: and the fifsf
question is, whether this Courf. IN such q
case, has power and authority 10 Issue
writ ofmandamus, commanding the Post
master General to credit The said mai con-
tractors, Stockton, Stokes. and Others wit"
the sum or sums of money decided by Inc
Solicitor of the Treasury to be due to them
for and on account of the services or con-
tracts, mentioned in the said act OF Oon'
grcss of the 2d ofJuly, 1886
The duty Of the Postmaster General un.
der that act is clear and obSolue. leaving
him no discretion. 1t is duty, in the
execution of which the private rights OF
individuals are concerned; and the party
against whom the right is claimed Is resi-
dent" within this District and county. Inc
right Of the relators and the duty OF the
Postmaster General appearing to be clear
and absolute, the question arises, do the
lars afford a remedy?
If this had been case against State
officer, aaising upon statute of a State
in which the common law of England had
been adopted, it would be a clear case for
a mandamus,.. because the REALTORS could
no: have any other specific remedy. nor
any other remedy equivalent 10 specific
remedy, recording TO the forms Of the COM
mon law.
['The court next proceeded ;t Al length 10
answer objections which had been made
10 its power to issue a man1amus; after
whichi: conc!uics as follows.
The suggestion that the President and
Heads ofDepartmcnts are not responsible,
except by impeachment, for the exercise
Of their ministerial functions, seems to i'm.
ply that the Postmaster General, like the
Heads of Departments, may shelter HIM
self under the authority or command of
the President. But fhey can do it, in a
case like the present, where the duty is
expressly enjoiDed upon the officer by an
act of Congress, this officer cannot do it.,
for his relation to the Presidents very dil-
terent from theirs. They, in the very
terms BY which their offices were created
and their duties defined, arc to perform
such duties and execute such orders as
they shall be required to perform and ox-
ccute by the President of the United
States. The Secretary Of the Treasury,
however, may possibly stand in a different
relation to the President, as his duties are
better defined by law, and as there is a
direct communication, established by law,
between him and the Legislature, without
the Intervention Of the President; but still
he is bound by the 2l section Of the act
OF the "a Of September, 1879, "gencrally
to perform all such services, relative to
'lhe finances, as he shall be directed to per-
form" The act does not say by whom
he may be thus directed. If by the Presi-
dent il is the same as that fthe other Heads
of Departments. The Postmaster Gen.
cral, however, clearly bears no such rcla-
ton to the President. We cannot find a
word in the law under which he was ap-
pointed, or in the various laws respecting
the Post Office establishment; or in the
Constitution Of the United States. which
intimatcs any conncxion between him and
the President; or any authority in the
President to prescribe his duties, or to con.
troll him in the exercise ofhis official tupc.
tions.
1t is true that he is appointed, ard
therefore may be removed, by the Prcsi.
dent. But the President, if he has the
power TO control him, can only do it
through his fear of removal. Iihe should
so control him, no act done by him under
that control could be thereby Justified
The Postmaster General, in the exercise
Of the duties of his Office, appears to be
legally as independent of the President as
the President is of him. There can there.
fore be no pretcnce for avoiding respon-
sibility under any order Of the President,
nor sharing the responsibility which may
be supposed to belong to that high officer.
That the refusal Off public officer, resi-
dent in this District, to do ministerial
act, which by law he is positively COM
manded to do, whereby an individual is
deprived Of his right, is a case, either in
law Or equity, of which this Court has
tognizance, by virtue of the fifth section of
the act of Congress ofthe 9th ofFebuary,
1901, "concerning the District of Colum-
b!a.' That the only adequate remedy,
in the case presented to us, is a specific
.1~1,, o,>l <to =. I