Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1838-12-14

has been paid ; the claims Of the prosecutors
have been satisfied and the whole subject, SO
far as they are concerned. is finally disposed
of; but 1t is on the supposion that the case may
he regarded as an authoritative exposition Of
the law as it now stands, thatI have thought it
necessary to present it to your consideration.
The object Of the application TO the circuit
court was TO compel the Postmaster General to
carry into effect an award made by the Solicitor
OF the ] Treasury, under special act OF congress-
for the settlement of certain claims Of the re-
laors on the Post Office Department, which
award the Postmaster General declined to exc
cute in full, until he should receive further leg
isatvo direction On the subject III the duty
imposed on the Postmaster Generally that law,
was TO be regarded as one OF an official nature,
belonging to his Office a branch of the Ex~
ecutvc, then it is obvious that the constitutional
competency Of the Judiciary TO direct and con-
troll him in its discharge, was necessarily drawn
IN question. And fthe duty so imposed on the
Postmaster General was to be considered as
merely ministerial, and not executive, it yet re-
manned to be shown that the circuit court of this
district had authority TO interfere by mandamus
such power having neve: before been as
serted or claimed by that court.
! With view to the settlement OF these impor-
tant uesons, the judgment Of the circuit court
was carried, by writ Of error, to the supreme
court Of the United States. In tho opinion OF
that tribunal the duty imposed on the Postmaster
General was not an Official executive duty, but
one of a merely ministerial nature. The grave
con ,itutiUnal questions which had been dis
cussed, were, therefore excluded from the de-
cision of the case the court indeed, expressly
admitting that with powers and duties properly
belonging to the executive, no other department
can interfere by the writ of mandamus; and the
question, therefore, resolves itseltinto this: Has
congress conferred upon the circuit court OF this
district the power TO issue such writ TO an
officer Of the general government, commanding
him to perform ministerial act ? A maj 'rlty
of the court have decided that 1t has but have
founded their decision upon process OF rea-
soning which, in my judgment, renders farther
Legislative provision Indispensable to the publis
Interests aud the equal adm n sira'on OF Justice
1t has long since been decided by the Supreme
Court, that neither that tribunal nor the circuit
courts Of the United States held within the 70.
spect:ve states, possess the power in questions
bu; it is now held that this power, denied to both
these high tribunals, 10 the former by the Con.
stitutIon and to the latter by Congress) has been,
by its LEGISLATION, vested in the circuit court OF
this District. No such direct grant OF power 10
the circuit court Of this District is claimed but
it has been held to result by necessary implica-
!ton, from several sections OF the law establish
ing the court One Of these sections declares,
that the laws Of Maryland as they existed at the
part OF the District ceded by that state; and, BY
this provision, the common law, in civil and
crimlnal-cases as it prevailed in Maryland in
1901, was established in that part of the District.
: In England, the Court OF Kings Bench-be-
cause the sovereign, who according to tho theory
OF the Constitution, is the fountain OF justice,
originally sat there III person, and is still deemed
to be present, in construction OF law-nlons
possesses the high power o! issuing the wri, OF
: mn / in, .tio nd
corporations, cut also to magistrates and others.
commanding them in the Kings name, to dc
:. what their duty requires, in cases where there 10
ii vested right, and no other specific remedy. 1t
) has been held in the ease referred to. that, as
the Supreme Court of the United States, is BY
the Constitution, re nd ered incompetent TO exor-
else this power, aud as the circuit court Of this
> District is "A cour, o general Jurisdiction in casss
at common law, and the highest court Of original
> jurisdiction in the District, the right to issue the
u writ of manddmus is incident to It's common law
powers. Another ground relied upon to main
tam the power III question, is, that 1t was lnclu-
j. dcd, by fair construction, in the ?ower it granted
= to the circuit courts OF the United States, by the
II act "to provide for the more convenient organi-
zarion OF the courts ofhc u. States" passed l3Ih
of Feb. 1901 that the act establishing the cir
cult court fthIs District, passed on the 9Th oil
IS February, 1901, conferred upon that court and
i, the judges thereofthc same powers as were by
III law vested in the circuit courts OF the u. States
s, and in the judges of the said coults--that the
H. repeal of the first mentioned act which took
~ place in tie next year, did not dlvest the circuit
he court of this District OF tho authority in dispute
st but left it sull clothed with the powers the
subject which, it is conceded. were taken away
from the circuit courts of the United States BY
H. the repeal of the act of 18th February, leUl.
10 Admitting that the adoption of the laws o
nc Maryland Tor portion of this District, confer
s. on the circui, court thereof in that portion, thu
al trauscendent extra judicial prerogalive power
- OF The Court OF Kings Bench, in England or tina
is either of the acts of Congress, by necessar!
SIS implication, authorize the former court to issu,
~ a writ OF mandamus to an officer Of the unitet
y States, to compel him to perform a mnisteria
- dnly, the onscqncnces are, IN one respect, TIT
u same. The result IN either case is, that th
81 officers of the United States stationed IN diff
= fercnt paris Of the United States, are, in respec
o to the performance of their official duties, sub
lg ject to different laws and a different supervision
/ those in the states to one rule, and those in tn
Ih Disricl Of Columbia to another and a very dit
te tcrent one, In The District their official conduc
ne is subject to iudisial CONTROL from which in tn,
ne States they are exempt.
s. Whatever difference of opinion may exist a
1t 10 the expediency of vesting such power in thu
ne Judiciary, in a system of Government constitutes
like that Of the United States, all must agre
30 that these disparaging discrepancies in the Law
as and in the administration OF justice ought not Il
IN he peimrtod 10 continue; and as Congress alon
m can provide the remedy, the subject is unavoida
lc bly, presented to your consideration.
at MARTIN VAN buren,.
! WASHINGTON, Dec 3, 1898.