Herald of the times. [volume] (Newport, R.I.) 1830-1846, 1838-12-13

by the circuit court Of this District. n
/ The lpcts Of the case, and the grounds OF
the proceedings, will be found fully stated in
he report Of the decision and any addition
al information which you may desire will be
supplied by the proper department. No iD-
reference in the partic ular case is contem'
| plated. The money 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 it is on
the supposllon that the case may be regard
ed as an authoritative exposition of the law
as II now stands, that have thought II ne
cessary 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 al award made by the
Solicitor of the Treasury, under special uct
of Congress for the settlement OF certain
claims Of the REALTORS on the Post Office De-
| par,ment, which award the Postmaster Gener-
al declined to execute in full, until he should
receive further legislative direction on the
subject. If the duty imposed on the Post
master General, by that law, was to be re-
garded as one of an official nature, belonging
to his office as branch OF the Executive,
then il is obvious that the constitutional com.
potency of the Judiciary to direct aud control
\ him in its discharge, was necessarily drawn
/ IN question. And if the duty so imposed on
II the Postmaster General was to be considered
I as merely ministerial, and not executive, II
I yet remained to be shown that the circnt
n court Of this district had authority to inter.
H icrc by mandamus-su power having
i never before been asserted or claimed by that
/ court With a view to the settlement OF
| these important questions, the judgment OF
/ the circuit court was carried, by u writ of er-
! ror, to the Supreme Court of the United
Il States. In the opinion Of that tribunal, the
| duty imposed on The Postmaster General was
II not an official, executive duty, but one OF
| merely ministerial nature. The grave con-
Il stituiional questions hich had been discus
sed were, therefore, excluded from the decis-
ion Of lie case the court, indeed, expressly
admitting that. with powers and duties pro-
perly belonging 10 the Executive, no other
department can interfere by the writ OF man
dsmus; and the question: therefore, resolved
itself into this Has Congress conferred up
on the circuit court Of this District the power
to issue such writ to an officer of the Ge-
neral Government commanding him to per-
form a ministerial act? A majority Of the
court have decided that it has, but have
Il founded their decision upon process Of rea-
soning which in my jndgmont,render further
II legislative provision indispensable to the pub
H lIc interests and the equal administration Of
\ Justice.
\ Ii has long since been decided by the Su-
| preme Court, that neither that tribunal nor
/ the circuit courts Of the United States held
within the respective States, possess the
\ power in question; but it is now held that
Il this power denied to both of these high trl-
bunals, Ito the former by the Constitution,
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
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 cesslon, should be
in force in that part Of the District ceded by
that State and, by this provision, the com.
mon law, in civil and criminal cases, as 1t
prevailed in Maryland in 1901, was establish
ed in that part OF tho District.
i In England. the Court of Kings Bench
!, because the sovereign, who, according to the
\ theory Of tho Constitution, is the fountain Of
4 justice, originally sat there in person, and is
/ still deemed to be present, in construction Of
II law-alone possesses the high power Of lssn-
II
/ or jurisdictions and corporations. but also to
Il magistrates and others, commanding them, IN
\ the Kings name, to do what their duty re.
/ quires, in cases whore there is a vested right,
/ and no other specific remedy. Ii has been
/ held, in the case referred to, that as the Su-
|. preme Court of the United States is, by the
Constitution, rendered incompetent to exer-
cise this power, and as the circuit court Of
ri,t 10 n nf Iict ion
/ 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 powers. Anoth-
er ground relied rpon to maintain the power
IN question, is, that it was included, Oy fair
construction, in the power it granted TO the
circuit courts Of the United States, by the act
"to provide for the more convenient organi-
zation of the courts Of tho United Statee,"
Il passed 18th of February, 1901 that the act
establishing the circuit court OF this District,
| passed the 9th day of February, 1901, con-
lerred upon that court and the judges there
II Of the same powers as were by law vested in
II the circuit courts of the United States and in
i the judges of the said courts that the repeal
/ of the first mentioned act, which took place
Il in the next year, did not divest the circuit
II court oi this District of the authority in dis
putc, brt left it still clothed with the powers
over the subject which. ii is conceded, were
taken away from the circuit courts of the
United STATES by the repeal OF the act of 18th
February, 1901.
Admitting that the adoption Of the laws of
Maryland for portion of this District confers
on the circuit court thereof, in that portion,
the transccndent extra.judlcial prerogative
powers Of the Court of Kings Bench in
|, England. or that either Of the acts Of Con-
gress, by necessary implication, authorize
II the former court to issue writ Of mandamus
to an officer Of the United States, to compel
4 him to perform ministerial duty, the conse-
H quenccs are, in one respect, the same. The
\ result in either case is that the officers Of the
Il United States, stationed in different parts Of
the United States, ore, in respect to the per-
| iormance Of their official duties, subject to
\ different laws and a different supervision |:
\ those in the States to one rule, and those in
Il the District Of Columbia 10 another and ve-
\ ry different one. IN the District their official
conduct is subject to Judicial control, from
which ia the States they are exempt.
/ Whatever difference Of opinion may exist
az to the expediency Of vcsting such pow
er in the judiciary, in system Of Government
N cd bko that oG tho ITn,tab State, oil