New-York tribune., 1867-04-27

foreign States and the subjects of foreign states or c
Of sister States II IL true that the @raiers @ W
the Constitution do not 10 have been so cautious as
take into their consideration this nice excepon haC
by possibility there might be some people ving wtn i
10 Congress for the seat OF Government who would not
be the citizen Of any State and therefore not proyuon
taken into CONSIDERATION that there ever would be
any considerable nnber m persons ~ ,,te tee aSas @hUt
which the state would have any cause OF complaint thas
would desire to redress except their @ eUw ere sbeSt
to foreign nations That is little bit OF edsns oiss
trng evil that might psSSSS c5t the costtnton did
expressly provide But the CONSTITUTION uu proEo
that state should have judicial rcedy 60 nnwsr sn
process who might do IL injury and, OF course VINO mI
menace an injury If se were tn was to
sist them III they individuals VINO did not come
with The strong hand u invasion the State to have
as means of protection against unlawful acts the right
OF coming into the Supreme Court QL the ob,eu
IN tile Constitution itself This is the Court or frst
instance into which the State Is 70 come. Whetner -
ia rights that are usual and customary according TO
the tlws Of the parent state ana the EXISTING lsWs VI
states during the short period they existed as states that
were allowed In courts la cases at law or slaI.y. n
State Of the Uplon, then, IL body polite ana eorpora
lieh i unable like other States intended To De pegnh
nent and ndestructble to protect itself Dy any ,oens
means against thoso outside of Its territory In llen OF
that the Federal Government is required to protect u
against violence and INVASION the ingh fqu,y IIpun,
the Supreme Court OF the United States II oDhgea oy @
terms Of the Constitution, any state can ni.om
a case OF Injury done or meditated, remit af
diabe by the ordinary processes OF - court oi
enuity against any one, outside Of their jurSfc-
tion beyond teir reach by their own courts anh
procesSps TO give them such remedy as IL usual ~ such
cases NY learned friends remarks about the reJeeuoh
in the Convention Of the proposition Tor councl OF IT,
offer objection TO the jurisdiction OF the corI
in this case He says this court was thereby nvorceu
from political questions. Not so ut all TINS court was
divorced from any participation, IN any shape, IN fgs
aton or az least legis power was not conferred OF
it. Tho jurisdiction Of the court US court 9, ersats1 u,
under the Constitution was Of course intended tohy
TO an questions With which the court was capame
trdrio In this court upon the government oT State
for exercising Ls pUwrrs That u Estate offce ara ap
prchend that guo cdrruno Ivy the Judiciary OF the state
against s government, would be very much IKE thht
which my friend condemned me Other , ,dEy Nv
ing ont OF this court against tne Chei ENeenVc. hy
learned friend has said much about all ths Deg SOh
gent and future, but we nave pFeSSea phy and
distinctly facts that eann0t DE uslicu, I ,, n snl
have n0t denied. The President says ne VIII exc exc
cute these acts Gen. Grant has Issued an order tat Is
set forth in the bl the Commanders OF the various
Districts transmitting 20 them copies OF tue cts, anu Me
minor officers have declared their intention TO execute
thcn My learned friend says that the Court WIN not ,ct
upon fears aud apprchcnslOs The TACT Is pwe Vther
wise hill qtd ei is Of the very heads OF equity
jurisdiction It must, 10 Dc sure be stable ara suDs s
derares that he will execute certain of provisions,
when his GeneralnCh declares that lie VIII eNeeute
nlay os the whole military force Of the Union against
particular State Shall be SAID that the fears are not
nrecedents AZ difficulty The lack of pre edents as to
what Not lack 0f plecedens that state may sue III
state for the assertions 0f It's sovereign authority over
territory Of its governmental authority ara pontea
uuthorify n the word ." "soycregn" Is not considered
oppropriate The decisions numbcrless. may say
that state may bring such suit. but he says tha
should have had a great many more Instances No lhul
vdual has before IN this manner attcpted 70 aSa
will again. II this Court lay down the laws anu enforce
the Constitution. rs We suppose them 10 sNs,, ~
cnurmy of the acts which is brought under the OBJ
scryaon Of the Court. Again my learned flend finally
sRes sSss iS HtteT Ta. Of the @ the stated and the relief
sought political IN their nature ana Nc sltes mat
the case In nearly like DORIS Luther ag Borden re-
ported in eth Howard. In that case tIe precise tllg
by Dorr and adherents wn'c1 tneso & ae's
stnte government n the hands OF portion OF the people
of that STATE. constituting rs whole cer,SIu pYdy I
I'm H. that a greater number o electors ought Ia DO ad
mittcd, and he therefore undertook oy spontaneous
meetings 10 erect an Independent state government
He failed in So doing. This Court decided that
IL was no government bnt that the original al
the legitimate and lawful Government ana consequently
Dorr failed. He failed, trust, not through any Other
cause but the injustice impropritty and esaty vi MS
course The very reasons would lead 10 the over
throw of these acts OF Congress- but the great ogoear
its proprety Is that this ~ apohcal question: ANA
understand the tenor OF the argument II Is this - po
word political that y touches party politics. |
humby apprehend tat that Svhna1I no "ye1taon ,,on
FOR Court OF Justice 10 he Obliged 20 pass ia tht sense
and was Somucd 10 rely upon the Executive authority
fog the faithful execution OF ofltsJudgnehts Tue suyeJt
adequate reach and II the right claimed be legal
right, or i the wrong complained OF DC Oh character
ton arising from the deleacy or dlfcnlty 0 te question
that may be presented or the passions Nc Ine
habeas corpus instance Tile operation OF that
the validity OF Executive acts. Prize cases were another
illustrations cases between states as To boundary
The Of Kendall was cited on ana the power 20 issue
ts.In .ffAF We
by reference "a English cases, and 70 Drewry on IN
functions The doctrine was asserted that While te Ja
unconstitutional while IL cannot touch tne
person OF Chief Magistrate IL can protect the rights
f anv Individual showing other respects right TO
their mterposon IN his behalf against an act OF Con-
grrss which is not law which is void and against any
nawflI action attempted under IT, We have shown by
the cases cited that the highest officers III England
cited there and here that by injunction and mandamus
the highest subordinate officers OF the Executive Depart
inent are enjoned and commanded There Is an imperi
Gus necessity we admit, applicable any other De-
parmen of the Government and arising from the unity
Of the Executive. that the Executive person long as
he holds that office should exempt from the coercyc
process OF the Court But that is reason why the
Court should pronounce its Judgments and use its
process 10 cOerce subordinate officers admOnshng them
Of what is the law admit that such an admoniton
pecept to subordinate officer OF the Executive cannot
be enforced II the President chooses TO stand In the way
and prevent its execution l say that
il is heresy OF the most palpable
description there talk about the court having or not
having the power execute its DEGREES No court OF
Justice in free country had the power 10 execute
It's DEGREES Every court must look to the executive de-
parmen TO give IL 10 carry It's DEGREES into
execution but through his subordnates and by the phys
teal force at his command TO execute them. The court
may be said to be no than were the brain the
Judgment the intellectual power OF the nation IL exam
Ines question; IL decides the question 1t states what
ought TO be done in given case by reason OF that dc
for execution it leaves IL TO The
Executive Department The books from which the prin
cipes OF jurisprudence and political science are
drawn abound with nvectives against such an idea as
court, % judicial tribunal having power to exc
cute ts DEGREES. We told that Tor the
same body or the same individual 10 ueciare al
what s the law, and TO execute law Is the very
definition OF tyrant; is exactly what We witness IN
barbarous and semibarbarous climesthe Sovereign
the Law maker; he is the law expounder and with bar
hnro he often with his