Litchfield enquirer., 1838-12-13

 ". under special of Congress for the settlement of certain caims of the Telai1rs on tie Post Ofice Department, which award the Postmaster General de- clned to execute in full. until se should receive fur ther legislative direction on the subject If the duiy imposed on the Postmaster General, by that law, to be regarded as one of an ocia nature, belonging to his office branch Of the Executive, then il Is obvious that inc constitutional competency Gt ie Ju dclary to direct and control him m its discharge, was necessarily drawn in question: And if the duty so imposed on the Postmaster General t0 be consid cred as merely ministerial, and not executive, II yet remained to be shown that the circuit of this Ds trict had authority to interfere by mandamus-such power having never before been asserted claimed by that court.
 With view to the settlement of these important questions, the judgment at the circuit court was car red, by writ of errGr to the Supreme Court oI the United States. In the opinion ot that tribunal, the duty imposed on the Postmaster General was not in othclal executive duty, but one of merely minste- ral nature: The grave constitutional questions which had been discussed were therefore, excluded tro the declsion ot the case; the court, indeed, expressly ad inIttlng that, with powers and duies properly belong ing 10 the Executive, other department can inter tere hy the writ of mandamns; and the question:, therefore, resolved itself into this Has Congress co- ierrcd upon the circuit court of this District the pow CT to issue such writ to officer of the General Goyernmeni commanding him to perform minis'e. rai act A majority of the court have decided that has, but have founded their decision upon process of reasoning which, in my judgment, renders further legislative provision indispensable to the public inter- esls and the equal administration of justice. It has long since been decided by the Supreme
 
 of the United States held within Retrospective States possess the power in question but t is held that ihis power denied to both of these high tribunals ito { the former by the constitution, and the latter by Con- gress has been, by it's legislation, vested in the cir cult court of this District. No such direct grant of power to the circuit court of this District is claimed tlon, from several sections of the law establishing the court One of these sections declares, that the laws ot Maryland as they existed at the time of the ces- sion should be in force in that part of the District ce ded by that State and by this provision, the com. mon law m civil and criminal cases as it prevailed in Maryland in 1901, was established in that part of the Distr;c:. - 2,.,
 In England, the Court of Kings Bench,- -hecause the Sovereign, who according 10 the theory ot the constitution, IS the fountain of justce originally sat there in person. and is still deemed be present, in construction of law,-alone possesses the high power ot issuing the writ of mandamus, not only to inferior Jurisdictlcns and corporations hut also O magistrates and others, commanding them in the Kings name, to Go what thG'r duty requires in cases where there is vested right, and no other specific remedy. It has been held, m the referred to, that, the Supreme Court ot the United Satesis, by the constitution, rem dercd incompetent exercise this power, and as the Circuit Court of this District is Court of general iu rlsdiction in cases at common law and the highest Court ot original jurisdiction in the District the right to issue the writ of mandanus is incident to it's com mon law powers
 Another ground relied upon to maintain the power Tn question, is, that concluded by fair constrnc ton in the power granted to the circuit courts ofte United States, by the act "to provide for the more convenient organizaton of the courts of the United
 
 ing the circuit courts of this district passed the 27th day Of February l90 conferred upon that court and the judges thereof the same powers as were by law in the judges of the said that the repeal ofthe frs'-menrioned act, which took place in the next year, did not dvest the circuit court of this district of the authority in dispute but Jeff 1t still clothed with the powers over the subject which, it s conceded, were nken away from the circui, courts of the United States by the repeal of tho act of 18th February l00l Admitting that the adoption of.the laws of Mary land for portion of this District confers the circuit court thereof in that portion. the ranscendant extra judicial prerogative powers of the court of Kings Bench in Engand or that either Of the acts of Con- gress by necessary implication authorize the former court to issue writ of mandamips to an officer of the United States. to compel him to perform min sternl duty, the consequences aI, in one respect the same. The resnl, in either caseis that inc officers of he United States, stationed in different parts of the United S:aies are, in respect ko the performance of ferent supervision those in The States to rule, and 1 those in inc District of Columbia 10 another and very different one In the ds,,ict their official con duct is subject to judicial con4o from which in the I Snes they are exempt. Whatever difference of opinion may exist to the expediency of vesiing such pdwer in the judiciary. in system o Government constituted like that of the United States, all must agree hnt these disparnging discrepancies in the law and ttEe administration oi justice ought not to be permitted to continue, md as Congress alone can provide the Temedy the sul ect is unavoidably presented to your f0nsdernii0n.
 s E -..s.r M. VAN BUREN. l WAsmNaToN, December 3, 1883. r1ty ... | CONGRESS.-We have notroom for the fnll pro- ccedings of Congress On the first day. in the Sen ate, Mir. King of Alabama ook the Chair, the Vice President not having reached Washington Usual Committees of interchange appointed, and the Senate l adjourned -58 t..~a .rt' .-,. .s'l I In Me House, after sundry small matters, motion was made to go into the choice of Clerk, in place of Mr. Franklin. deceased-and on motion of Mir. Dromgoole of Va. that it be by rocc. 21O mem- bers, besides the Speaker were in their seats. On the first ballot Matthew St. Clair Clarke received 5 votes-.Hugh A. Garland of Va. 4s-Edword Liv- ingston of N. Y. 2l-Samuel Shock of Pa. 2I-Ar. mold Naudain of Del. 2O-Henry Bueherof Pa. l6- James H. Birch of Mo. P-John Bigler of Ohio SIR. | M. Whitney g. No choice. A second ballot was then had, which resulted as follows :-Mr. Clarke SS votes-Mr Garland 59-Mr. Livingston 26-Mr. Shock l3-Mr Buehler l3-Mr. Bgler 6. No choice. The nominations of all the candidates except Messrs Garland and Clarke were then withdrawn, when, on the third ballot, Mr. Garland was chosen, he having JOG votes, and MT. Clarke I0l. Mir Garland is V. Buren man.
 Taesday-Little else except .the reception of the Presidents Message. and some resolutions of Mr. Adams respecting Texas, and the controversy be. tween Mr. Stevenson. our MinieteF to England, and MT. OConnell, occupied the attention of either House. 5000 copies of the Message in the Senate, and 10000 in the House, ordered 10 he printed
 Wednesday- Annunciation of tue death of Messrs Patterson and Bruyn. members from Eew-York, du- ring the of the session. and customary resol- lions on such occasions passed. Case of contested election between Messrs. Jones, sitting member, and Mr. Doty, recently elecied, from Wisconsin, came up. and postponed 10 Monday-tO which time each house adjourned. MT. Jones, understand it. claims that he entitled his seat through the pres. eni session. and that Judge Do'y should no sit tll new Congress. r sat o+
 .. ,, ai f.