American citizen. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1864-1890, 1867-05-11

oohot1t1iiVnNi II1HtlpIcS, DtSuuSe
think we should not assume that tn,
eminent men who are about to brinl
, this subject again into discussion il
the Supreme Court are engaged in ,
desperate undertaking. Nor shorlt
the public assume that the States fol
t whose interests they hct are moved
ny factlous purposes It may turl
out that the suits eve in their now
modified form, will dismissed fol
want ofjurisdiction. tBut, itthe legal
mind ofthe country b to be satisfied
that such Il result h in accordance
with the duty Of the Su, rene Court,
1t will be upon wcigtItitr and more
solid reasons than( r. discoverable
in the opinion of TN Chief-Jnstice
refusing leave to Gle sthe Mississippi
bill because it souglA an injunction
against the President. The distinc-
ton taken in that opinion between
oihe al acts that. are merely ministe-
rid aud those Which involve execu-
tive discretion, E%sbeing or not be,
ing within thw reacli of the judicial
power to compel the doing Of the act,
has no very appareiB application to
ease where the'9udstion is whether
the Judicial I,Swer can restrain the
dong OF acts because the law which
authorizes those acts constitutiOnally
c0literS no authority to do them.
The GUeStion,in these cases is whether
the executiyA duties, imposed by the
acts of Cong fess, saey discretion,
airy or ministeI1ng only, can exist
at all, :" We are unable to perceive,
says the Cbief,Justice, "that this
circumstance takes the case ont ofIhe
general principle which forbids Judi
cial interference with the exercise of
executive discretion" But the whole
question, it may be respectfully sug-
gestea, Is, whether the discretionary
executive power, if that be its char
acter under the acts of Congress,
can have any existence under the
Constitution.
The suggestion shat the Court was
not to act because the House might |
impeach the President if he obeyed |
the mandate of the Court, was GER
tanly no very conclusive rea 0n why |
the Court had not jurisdiction of the
case presented. II such result were
to occur, the Senate, OH the trial of
the impeachment, would be bound to
regard the Judgment of the Court as
upon the question If the
constitutional validity of the law, if
there is any truth whatever in the
theory that the Supreme Court is the
inal arhi.er Of constitutional ques-
ions relating to the powers of the
several departments of the govern
nent. Whether this Senate would
>ay a loyal Difference to this great
may be question Of proba.
)liities bat ii scarcely seems to be
ne province Of the Supreme Cour,
o inquire into that.
as both the cases are now free
rom any embarrassment arising from
he prayer for direct iniun, ton on
he President, the way is clear Tor a .
of the most moment0us
ueStion that has c,S lc,'He before
3s s"pr an m o9nS t5 vt'S ss
he question now to n, Nebated is, :
neither the CgAGtea AuctioneelS: VII lion,
he Court is callee undersigned ofpsiIi, its !
institutional fv 4 line of busn,the final ,,
ltc,SAter of p p s"p''y and OF ution in i
,lation 10 the or /. o, Wncrts OF .,
he government. w tie nation =
large is chiefly and oeeply con. i
'rned in is, that the question shall
e met as to how that the function
the Court is not ahdicated, but II
lat il is preserved as ;he people of u
Ie United States meant to create it. IL
When this appears, the country q
i'll he satisfied with the result. 1t G.
ay be that there are boundaries u {
pable OF being clearly defined which u u
i'll SHE W that the judicial depart ~ !,
ent cannot arrest the execution of u
law of Congress, however unconsti. ,!
tiOnal, because of the nature of the ll,,'
is which that law auth0l ICES to be u
ne, and the position OF the agents a
ION it employs. This is what we
ny wait to sec determined. But it
not determined by saying that the be
dicia1 Department cannot com Ga
md the Executive to do an act t"
ich is discretionary in its nature M
G.. T. c. Ci