The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1851-12-11
Can the President make Lawi

answer for Minnesota.
Can the President make Lawf
Last week, we briefly examined the case in
Peters, 5Il, the Am. Ins. Co. ct al W. Cantcr ct
al, upon which Mr.. Grundy based his opinion
that the Judges Of Territorial Courts were not
civil officers aud such, liable 10 impeachment.
II appeared 10 US that distinction might exist
between Federal Courts established ia the Terri
tory Of Florida and those established in the Ter
ritory Of Minnesota, in as much as the Territory
we inhabit, was within the sovereign limits Of the
Constitution and one Of its objects, when formed,
while Florida was then under the sovereignty of
Spain, and was therefore not an object contem-
plated by the Constitution. But the opinion of
Chief Justice Marshall, seems to place the Fed
eral Judicial power upon the same footing, in all
territories, at least where by the law of Congress,
the judicial term is limited to period of years
The Court seems to infer that Federal Courts of
the Territories are not Constitutional Courts, in
which the Judicial power conferred by the Cons,i-
tuition in the General Government, can be depcs-
tied; because the Judges hold their offices for only
four years, whereas, Judges both of the Supreme
and Inferior Courts, the Constitutional Conrts re-
fened to in the 3rd Article of the Constitution,
hold their Offices during good behavior. Granting
It to be true, that thess not Constitutional
Courts, as Federal Circuit and District Courts in
the States are, 'we fail to see'' why, or in what
respect the Judges are not cirn officers, and a.
such, liable to impeachment. Their not being
Constitutional Judges, might be a reason why
they could not be impeached as Judges Of the Su-
preme and Inferior Courts; but it would be no
reason why they could not be impeached as
''o,her civil officers Or even if they were not
liable to impeachment, it does not at all follow,
that the President has right to remove them.
1t is pretended that this power to remove Terri.
torial Judges, is expressly conferred; it is wholly
implied, il ii exist, and the implication, as we
have already shown, confers a very dangerous
power upon the Executive, and power which
utterly prostrates tho independence Of Territorial
Courts, power SO questionable, if it may be in-
ferred, that it has never before been exercised in
the history Of our Government. If therefore, any
thing exists in the Organic Act creating these
against the power Of the President 10 remove
these Judges, such implication ought to have the
force Of an absolute, express prohibition of the
power. Now let Us examine The Organic Act Of
Minuosotu At
fers upon the President, the power to remove
some territorial officers, and cautiously avoids
comforting the power to remove other territorial
officers; and above oil If those other territorial
officers be Judicial officers, it will raise power
fn, an irresistible presumption, in the mind Of
any impartial person, that Congress never meant
TO confer the power. Our Organic Act, Sec 2,
provides: "'That the executive power and author
ity in and over said Territory Of Minnesota, shall
be vested in Governor, who shall hold his Office
for four years, and until his successor shall be ap-
pointed and qualified, unless sooner removed by
the President Of the United States.''
Sec. 3, provides, "That there shall be Sec
creiary Of said Territory, who shall reside there
in, and hold his Office for four years, unless sooner
removed b. the President Of the United States"
Now mark well the language Of Sec. 8, which
provides, THAT the Judicial power of said Ter
ritory shall be vested in supreme court, district
courts, probate courts, and in justices Of the
peace. The supreme court shall consist Of
chief justice and two associate justices, any two
Of whom shall constitute quorum, and who shall
hold term at the seat Of government of said
Territory annually, and they shall hold their
Offices during the period Of four years.
Now will any man give even plausible rea-
son, why the 9Th Section relating TO Judges, does
not contain the words "uness sooner removed by
the President as the End and 3rd Sections do.
If these words had been omitted IN all these Sec
tons or in either the LIST or End section, there
would have been slight reason for inference that
il might have been omitted Fundamentally, in the
9th Section. As it stands now, no candid mind
can escape the conviction, that Congress meant,
in these Sections, exactly what is expressed, viz:
that the Gov. or the Secretary might be removed
within four years; but that the Judges could not
be. This is the only consistent. reasonable, hon.
est construction, to be given to the Act. II is sx-
actly parallel to the case Of Justice Marbury. in
the District of Columbia, only stronger; for as
we have just shown. the possibility Is excluded
in this case, that Congress ever designed to con-
fer the power upon the President to remove these
Judges. These Courts were created, solely by