Democrat and sentinel. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1853-1866, 1857-06-24
EBENsBURG, JUNE "a, 1857.

BILE of right into the State Treasury, and the
legal possession of the said public works is in
this Commonwealth.
That BY an act of Assembly, approved the
18th day of May, A. D. 1857, entitled g an
act for the safe of the Main Line of the Pub
lie Works." it is among other things made
the duty of the Governor to give public no.
tice of the time and place of sale. and to
have offered at public sale the whole Main
Line of the public works, in manner and
form in the said act is prescribed.
That the said act, so far as this afiant
knows or is informed and believes, was 1e.
gitimate and constitutional exercise of the
legislative power, and was passed in pursu-
ance of policy deliberately adopted by the
Legislature and sanctioned by the people: as
expressly declared by popular vote and by
repeated acts of legislation: and that this
afiant, in discharge of the executive duty
imposed upon him as Governor of this Com
monwealth, has advertised the said Main
Line of the public works for sale: that it is
nis design and purpose in all respects to per-
form the duties imposed upon him, aud to
comply with and obey the said act of Assem-
bly,: and he denies the right or the power of
this court to obstruct or interfere with him in
the exercise of his functions as supreme ex-
ecutive officer of this Commonwealth.
JAMES Pollock,
Governor of Pennsylvania.
Sworn and subscribed this 18th day of
June, A. D., 1857, before ME
JOHN b. KENNEY, Aid.
Mott ct al. vs. Pennsylvania Railr road
Company, ct. ai.-Brief on behalf of Gov.
Pollock.-The Governor is not amenable to
this court or to any court for the exercise of
his executive functions: but is responsible
only in the mode pointed out in the constitu-
ton. Any judicial interference with the
prerogative or the executive, or with his acts
as Governor in accordance with the directions
Of the Legislature, would be a violation of
the constitution, the natural effect of which
would be collision between the different de-
partments of the government.
In the case of Marbury VS.. Madison, 1st
Cranch, 1877, which was an application to the
Supreme Court of the United States for q
mandamus to the Secretary of State of the
United States, Mr.. Lee, in arguing in sup
port of the application, distinctly admitted
that the court had no jurisdiction to issue a
mandamus to the President In any case what
ever, ard that the Secretary of State was not
liable to mandamus in respect to any official
acts in reference to which he acted under the
discretion of the President. The court, in
their opinion in the same case, expressly dis
claim any right to attempt to intermediate
with the President in the exercise of his ex-
ecutiva perogative. PIP. 1906, 1870
" Where the head of department" say they,
:. acts in a case in which he is the mere organ
of executive will, any application to a court
TO control in any respect his conduct, would
be rejected without hesitation 1t is scarcely
necessary for the court to disclaim all preten-
sions to such a jurisdiction. An extrava-
gauce so absurd and excessive could not have
been sustained for q moment The province
of the court is solely to decide on the rights
of individuals not to inquire how the e1ecu-
tive or executive officers perform duties in
which they have discretion Questions in
their nature political, or which are by the
constitution and laws submitted to the execu-
tive, can never be made in this court"
I'd. Are the complainants as public Off
GERS, entitled to bring the public rights into
this Court to be adjudicated upon, and to con-
test the validity of an act of the Legislature
on account of its bearing on the public inter-
ests. What public functions have they ex-
cept just such as the Legislature chooses to
give them? Formerly appointed by the
Governor, and more recently elected by the
people in accordance with an act of Assem-
bly,, they are merely ministerial agents, all
whose movements are subject to the control
of the Legislature, which is in the constant
habit of supervising and directing their pro-
cecdings and of overruling and reversing
their acts whenever it is considered expedient
to do so. The same power which created
them can abolish them and all their functions,
and the attempt on their part to set up them
cal, Dff fh< v,s,b1 -,
assume the power of questioning, in their
capacity of public agents, the right of the
Legislature to dispose of them. and of inter-
posing to invoke the process of this Court to
prevent the executive from carrying out the
directions of the Legislature, to expose them
to sale, is an arrogant pretension to authori-
ty not delegated to them, and an infatuated
attempt to rise higher than the source from
which they derive their very existence as
public agents.
3d. Is the case as set out in the allegations
contained in the bill such as to entitle the
compliments, either as public officers or pri-
vate individuals, to demand and to require
this Court to extend to them the exercise oil
the extraordinary interposition, of the Court
to restrain, by special injunction, the sale ol
the Main Line of the Public Works as pre-.
scribed by the act of the 10th of Nav
1857. or the purchase there of by any o
the defendants On this 1t is to be oh.
served, that an injunction to restrain any
particular person from biding at the sale,
may. by removing, competition, as effectual-
ly prevent the sa' e from being made, as
positive prohibition of the sale
A legislative act cannot be impeached by
evidence in relation to the manner of pro.
ceeding, or the motives which induced the
members of the body, or the agencies used
to procure its passage. 1t would be unbe