Maumee City express. [volume] (Maumee City, Ohio) 1838-184?, 1838-12-22


carry into effect an award made by the solicitor
of the treasury, under special act of Con-
gress for the settlement of certain claims of
the REALTORS on the post Office department,
which award the postmaster general declined
to executein fnll, until he should receive fur
ther legislative direction on the subject. If
the duty imposed on the postmaster general,
by that law, was to be regarded as one of an
official nature, belonging to his Office as a
branch of the executive, then it is obvious
that the constitutional competency of tho iu-
dietary to direct and control him in its dis
charge, iiwas necessarily drawn in question.
Andif the duty SO imposed on the postmaster
general was to be considered as merely minis
terial, aid not executive, it yet remained to be
shown that the circuit court of this District
had authority to interfere by mandamus--such
n power having never before been asserted or
claimed by that court. With view TO the
settlement Of these important questions, the
iudpment of the circuit court was carried, by
a5writ of error, to the supreme court of the
United States. In the opinion of that tribu
nal, the duty imposed on the postmaster gen.
eral was not an official, executive duty, but one
of a merely ministerial nature. The grave
constitutional questions which had been dis
cussed were, therefore, excluded from the de-
cision of the case; the court, indeed, express
ly admitting that, with powers and duties pro-
perly belonging to the executive, no other de-
partment can interfere by the writ of manda-
mus; and the question, therefore, resolved it.
self into this: Has Congress conferred upon
the circuit court of this District he power to
issue such writ to an officer of the general
government commanding him to perform mi
nisterial act2 majority of the court have de-
cided that it has, but have founded their deci-
sion upon process of reasoning which, in my
Judgment, renders further Legislative provision
Indispensable to the public interests and the
equal administration of Justice.
II has long since been decided by the Sill
preme court, thai, neither that tribunal nor the
circuit courts OF the United States held with
in the respective states, possess the power in
question; but it is now held that this power,
denied to both of these high tribunals, Ito the
former by the constitution, and to The latter
byCongress,) has been by its legislation, vest
ed in the circuit court of this Dlstrict.-No
such direct grant of power to the circuit court
of this District is claimed; but it has been
held TO result, by necessary implication, from
several sections Of the law establishing the
court. One of these sections declares, that
the laws of Maryland, as they existed at the
time of the cession, should be in force in that
part of the District ceded by that state; and,
by this provision, the common law, in civil and
criminal cases. as it prevailed in Maryland in
1901, was established in that part of the Dis
trlct.
In England, the court of Kings Bench,--|
because the sovereign, who, according to the
theory of the constitution, is the fountain of
justice, originally sat there in person,and issued
the writ of mandamus, not only to inferior ju-
risdictions and corporations, but also to mags-
trates and others, commanding them in the
Kings name, to do what their duty requires,
in cases where there is vested right, and no
other specific remedy. 1t has been held, in the
case referred to, that, as the supreme court of
the United States is, by the constitution, rem
dered incompetent to exercise this power, and
as the circuit court of this District ig court
of general Jurisdiction in cases at common law,
and the highest court of original jurisdiction
in the District, the right to issue the writ of
mandamus Is incident TO its common law pow
ers. Another ground relied upon to maintain
the power in questIons is that it was included,
by fair construction, in the power granted to
the circuit courts Of the United States, passed
18th of February, 1901; that the act estab-
fishing the circuit court of this District, passed
the 9th day of February, 1901, conferred up
on that court and the judges thereof the same
powers as were BY law vested in the circuit
courts Of the United States and in the Judges
of the said COURTS that the repeal of the first |
mentioned act, which took place in the next
year, did not divest the circuit court of this
District of the authority in dispute, but left it I
still clothed with the powers over the subject
which. it is conceded, were taken away from
the circuit courts of the United States by the
repeal of theact of 18th February, 1901.
Admitting that the adoption of the laws of
Maryland for q portion of this district confers
on the circuit court thereof, in that portion,
the transcendant extra Judicial prerogative
powers of the court of Kings Bench, iD Eng
land, or chat either of the acts of Congress, by
necessary implication, authorize the former
court to issue writ of mandamus to an officer
of the United States, to compel him to perform
a ministerial duty, the consequences are, IN
one respect, the same. The result in either
case is, that the officers of the United States,
stationed in different parts of the United States,
are, in respect to the performance Of their Off
cial duties, subject to different laws and diff
ferent supervision; those in tho states to one
rule. and those IN the District of Columbia to
another and very different one. In the Dis
trct their official conduct is subject to judi
cial control, from which in the state they are
exempt.
Whatever difference of opinion may exist
Is to the expediency of vesting such power
in the judiciary, in a system of government
constituted like that of the United States, all
must agree that these disparaging discrepan-
cies in the law, and IN The administration of jns
tice ought not to be permitted to continue; {
and as Congress alone can provide the remedy,
the subject is unavodably presented to your (
consideration. M. VAN BUREN,.
Washington, Dec. 8, 1888. 4