Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1838-03-22

officer directed to perform it has no dis
erection. Is the remedy by NIandan,us
TT and appropriate remedy.
The common law of MARYLAND il the
law OF this District. The common law
provides this writ as the peculiar reme-
dy in such cases. The remedies sugges-
ted at the bar, were, an application TO
Inc President or TO Congress; or a civil
suit. These are not such remedies as the
law requires.
A case of Msndamns is case within
the Constitution. 1t possesses all the
qualities ofsuch case.
| =. Has the Circuit Court Of the Dis.
! trict jurisdiction of this case? 1t has
been decided that the Circuit Courts of
the United States have not jurisdiction.
Has the Circuit Court of this District
larger powers in this particular?
The terms o: the Constitution are
broad enough 10 warrant Congress in
vesting such jurisdiction in the Circuit
or other inferior courts of the United
States.
No objection can prevail derived from
the official character Of the party to
whom the writ is directed, or the charac-
ter of the act which he is called upon
TO perform.
The cases decided in this Court have
settled that the power to issue such
witt is within the judicial power as con-
ferred by the Constitution. and that
those courts could not exercise the pow
er, because Congress had not conferred
upon them all the power which 1t con-
siitutionaliy might do.
by theCenstitution and acts of cessiop.
Congress possesses exclusive legislative
authority over this District. So far as
regards cases in which Individual rights
are concerned. the judicial authority
should be co. extensive with the lepisla.
tive.
In Maryland prior to the cession of
this District, the writ Of Mandamus was
recognised as an appropriate remedy in
cases where, upon the principles of the
common law, it would lie.
TheCircuitCouri is rho only Court in thi.
District which possesses that original iu.
risdiction which can be thus exercised.
Under the LIST Sec. of the act of 9th
FEB. 1871, continuing the laws Of Mary
land, it would seem that this remedy is
continued. The I'd and 9th sections of
the same lew confirm the same conclu-
sion.
The Cert afirms the decision of the
Circuit Court Tor the District of Column
bla with costs. and remands the case TO
that Court for further proceedings.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, for himself and
Judge barbour, and Judge CATRoN,
disseEled from the opinion Of the Court.
The Chief Justice concurred with the
majority of the Court in the opinion
that the judicial power IS indicated by
the Constitution, authorized Congress. TO
confer jurisdiction upon ony of tie Cir
cult Courts 20 issue writs Of Mandsmus.
and also that this was ct case for a
Mandamus, as. in his Judgment, it
was the bouGden duty Of The Post
master General to enter the credit
for the full amount awarded by the
Solicitor az soon as that award wa.
notified to him. The only ground Of
dissent wss, that he did no. concur in
that part of the Opinion which coneider-
ed the Circuit Court Of the Disfirict as
possessing larger powers in this par.icu-
Ear than the other Circuit Courts of the
Cnitei States.
hlost sincerely do we congratulate our
readers upon the above decision, and A.
bove all upon the spirit Of independence
and o! resistance to the insidions Ell.
cEoachnehts of despotisn, which are
embodied it, and to which we DO not
understand the three Judges to dissent.
though they did dissent from the other
six on the question of law. This Opin.
ion confirms and 6xes our respec, for
the character ofihe Supreme Court. and
oar reverence for the principle Of Judi
cinl independence, so intimately blended.
III our mind, with these of judicia, in
tegrity and consistency. 1t will stand
as beacon to mark TO dernaaocues in
office, for all future time. the point at
which their presumption ard tyrauneus
disposition will be rebul5ed and efTcc-
lively stayed. The force of this aIlu-
sion cannot he well understood unless
by quotations from the Opinion. which
we have ii not in our power to make.
The substance OF one passage, however
we venture 10 state from memory thus.
The argument that the officer Of the
Government in this case was responsible
10 the President of the u. S. alone for
the discharge Of the duties imposed upou
him by law, is entitled TO no weight.
90 recognise its validity would be ves-