Plymouth banner. (Plymouth, Marshall County, Ind.) 1852-1855, 1853-12-01

! Bright inquired. III behalf OF Tie Marshal.
! lst. whe ther the case can be transferred
from the courts OF the State OF Indiana TO
those OF the United States? and 81. wheth
er the Marshal may be authorized TO EN-
ploy counsel in his defence, at the charge
OF the United States.
In regard to the first point. am Of
! opinion that both parties being inhabi-
tants OF the State Of Indiana, there is 10
existing provision Of law by which the
case can be removed to the Courts Of the
United States; and do not think it ex
/ pedient in this case. 1T least in the pres
en-. stage of it, to suggest any other
{ possible mode of bringing it before the
Courts of the United States. II may of
course, be made the subject of revision
/ there.
As TO the second poiat, am of opin
ion tina, it would be proper for the Pres
ident 10 authorize the employment of
counsel at the public charge, for the DC
| fence of the Marshal.
1t is the Constitutional duty of the
President ito take care that tha laws are
faithfully executed This By no means
implies that he shall ihterpose ia mater
Of mere individual and private litigation.
! But cases do sometimes occur between
| private indi iduals, more frequently
where public officer is party. liz which
a public interest is incidentally involved
rendering il lawful aud advisable that
counsel be employed by the United States.
Aud it may be a case Of public concern
meat. though 40 property of the u. ).
! is al stake; sor the integrity OF the cons;i-
tuition and conservation OF the laws are
a ma tier OF rluch greater importance TO
the government than the defense oc a par
eel OF the national domain. or The collec-
tion OF duties on cargo OF imported
merchandise. In any such case it is
question C: discretion on the part Of the
President or head of department to EN-
! ploy counsel for the United States or not.
according TO his judgment of the paeticu
| lar ci.cUms.a .ances, without its being pos
si5le TO lay down any more specific gen
eral iulc OF the subject. have no doubt
of the power Of the President in such
emergeucies-il is Of familiar practice
IL tke daily business Of the government.
Examples Of these are rot wanting in
cases where no officer Of the United States
directly concerned. ether ;han the genef
al security of the constitution. or the
peace end homer Of the government. o.
this az illustration 0cca.s III the part
which the United States took in the ase
some ears since Of the Indictment found
/ in the State OF New York against Aiexan-
der Mcleod.
snail not attempt to ,ay down any
general rule ofeSeetive discretion III such
case, fer the reason already iatimated,
that this discretion must of necessity be
SUideGed sy the particular circumstances.
Bat questions in the execution of laws
which affect the relation Of the United
States TO foreign governments. or the re-
lation Of the States between themselves
or them aad the federal government, may.
1t seems TO me, call occasionally for the
employment of counsel in behalf CT the
ministerial officers of the United States
whose official acts are in controversy.
In fact, the government Of the United
States acts in the domestic afl4irs of the
country chiefly through It's judicial and
ministerial officers. Attack On them
while administering ;he laws. SO IS thus
20 render the acts Of Congress ineffective,
is the first step. as all ths history Of the
| country indicates. in the progress Of in
surrec,ion; aud the defense of the integ-
rity and ability of the government. (See
! United States vs.. Vigol ii Dallas. 3l6;
United States vs. Mitchell ii Dallas, 249;
United States VS.. Fries, pamph. Phil.
1900; Shay's case, Mino.'s History OF the
lnsurfection in Massachusetts,
think the class Of cases, Of which the
present is one. belong to the same cate
CORY. III their no ture, and in their relation
OF importance to the public welfare and
to the duty of the President; seeing that
faithful execution of the acts Of Congress
for the Interstate extradition of fugi-
tives from service. in the face of organ
lied combinations y defeat or resist ths
execution, and to harass those engaged
in ii by vexatious suits. or other unlaw-
sential to the peace of the country and
:he safety OF the Union.
There is recent provision of law
which expressly recognizes the power of
the President in the premises. |; is the
act of August 81. 1852. ch. l08. sec. L.,
which enacts. That where the ministe-
rial officers of the United States have or
shall incur extraordinary expenses in ex-
ecuting the laws thereof. the payment OF
which is rot specially provided for. the
President Of the United States is author
lied to allow the payment thereof. under
the spacial taxation Of tn. district or cir
cult court of the district in which the
said services have been Or shall be rem
dered, to be paid from the appropriation
for defraying the expenses Of the Judicial
ry." (Session Laws. lS3l-'52. page 80.
For aught | can see to the contrary. this
provision of law is directly applicable to