The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1851-11-13

terrain ana 0eteffnine causes arising under the /
laws of Congress as well as Of the Territorial
Legislature, in fact, exercising al the FEDERAL
Judicial power unabsolced by the Supreme Court
Of he United STATES, il these are not Judges
of the Inferior Courts" within the meaning Of
the Constitution, the English language has ceased
to mean am thing. aimsy pretea, is set uP,
that our Judges are not Judges Of the Inferior
Courts within the meaning Of the Constitution.
because they are appointed for "A limited period.
Well now in the name Of God then, what are
they Judges off Through what other avenue
than these Courts, can sui,ors Of our Territory
come within the coguizance and jurisdiction Of
the judicial power Of the United States' Because
their period Of office is limited by law to four
years, does it follow that these Judges during
that short period, must draw every breath, under
the dread Of having it choked out by the Execu-
tive bows,ring? Or is it fair to argue that these
are not Judges Of the Inferior Courts, because
they are not appointed forever! Congress doubt
less had sufficient reasons for limiting their APP
pcintment to four years; that reason might have
been, that Minnesota would in four years, become
a State; or it may be Congress thought four
years long enough for Judges to serve, who could
not sooner be removed but by impeachment; but
whatever reason actuated Congress for this Iimi-
tation, these Judges not whit the less Judges
Of the Inferior Courts, and entitled to be shielded
from Executive decapiiaion.
The other doctrine, is not only hostile to the
genius Of the Constitution. but does violence to
every rule of legal Interpretation. Ii is monstrous;
and again we wonder how the President dared to
seize upon this new power, and patronage, the
removal and appointment of Federal Judges.
There was not even left to The President the ex-
cuse that this highhanded act Of power was at all
questionable; unless all precedent may be wan
tcnly disregarded md unless the opinion Of Chief
the weight Of high judicial decisions, are to be
aisregarded. In the celebrated ca se (mandan,us
Of Marbury VS.. Madison (l Cranch. 1917 which
calculates great number Of grave Constitutional
questions this very inquiry was involved. whether
the Presiden, Of the United States had any fur,h-
er control over Judicial officer, when nominated
and appointed by the President for q limited
number Of years, according to the act authorizing
his appointment. ......
The question arose upon the construction 10 be
given to Gan Ac, concerning the District of Co
lun,biu." (See L. 5. Statutes at Large, Session
e. l5.) Section IL Of this act provides, 'Ihat
there shall he appointed in and for each of the
said counties, such number Of discreet persons to
be Justices Of the Peace, as the President Of the
L. S. shall from time to time think expedicnt, to
continue in Office for four years. sc. In COM
menting upon this section, Chief Justice Marshall
gives the following amongst other opinions:
"The discretion Of the Executive is TO be c,-
erciscd until the appointment has been made.
But having once made the appointment, his pow
er over the office is terminated in all cases, where
by law the officer is not removable by him. The
right to the Office is then in the person appointed,
and he has the absolute, unconditional power Of
accepting or rejecting it, Again, ''And as the
law creating the Office gave The officer the right
to hold for five years Independent, Of the Execu-
live, the appointment was not revocable; bu,
vested in the officer legal rights, which pro-
tected by the laws Of his country"
Again: "When he (ihe Presidency has made
an appointment, he has exercised his whole pow
er and his discretion has been completely applied
to the case. If by lar, the officer be removable
at the will Of the President, then new appoint
ment may be Immediately made and the rights Of
the officer are terminated. But as a fact which
has existed canaot be made never 10 have existed
the appointment cannot be annihilated, and con-
sequeniIy, if the officer is by law not removable
at the will Of the President, the rights be has ac-
CURED, are protected by the law and are not re-
sumable by The President They canno, be ex-
tinguished by Executive authority, and he has the
privilege of asserting them in like marner as if
they had been derived from any other source"
Again, "Thc appointment conferred on him (jus-
tice Marbury) legal right 10 the office for the
space Of FIVE years" Again, "he has been APP
pointed to an office from which he is not removal
BILE at the will Of the Executive
c. J. Marshall does not deny the right Of re-
moval in this case, on the ground that Marbury
was a Judge or Justice Of one Of the Inferior
Courts Of the U. S.. but simply upon the ground
that the term Of appointment by the Act, was for
five years, aud that the Act gave the Presiden =.
no express authority TO remove the incumbent,
Now let US see how much stronger is the case Of
Judge Goodrich, who is not only clearly Judge
Of one of the Inferior Courts within the inca ming
Of the Constitution, who cannot be removed BY
the President. but who holds his Office under a
law Of Congress. couched in almost the precise
words to which G. J. Marshall gave the foregoing
constructions, and which like that law, couf.rs
upon the Executive no power Of removal. (See
Organic Act Of Min. Ter. sec. 81 1.-THE Supreme
Court shalt consist Of Chief Justice and two
Associate Justices, any two OF whom shall con-
stitute quorum and who shall hold term al the
seat Of government OF said Territory, annually.
and they shall hold their Offices during the ne
riof Of fonr years. In the case before quoted.