The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1867-05-01
The Mississippi and Georgia Injunction Cases.


Court in the ease of the State Of Mississippi VS.. An
drew johnson and E. o. G. Ord, on the motion for
leave to file the BILL as follows:
"a motion made some days since, in behalf Of
the State of Mississippi for leave file bill in behalf
of that State praying this Court perpetually enon
and restrain Andrew Johnson and E. O. G. Ord, COM
handing in the District of Mississippi and Arkansas,
from executing in any carrying out, certain
acts of Congress. The referred to those Of
March, and March % 1867, commonly known the
reconstruction The Attorney General objected
to the leave asked, upon the ground that no bill which
makes the President defendant and seeks injunction
against him to restrain the performance ofhis Duties
should be allowed to be filed in this Court. This point
has been fully argued, and We will now dispose of it..
We shall limit inquiries to the question presented
by the objection without expressing an opinion on the
broader issues discussed in the in
any case the President of the United States may be
required by process of this Court to perform purely
ministerial act required by law, may be held amena
bic in any case, otherwise than BY impeachment for
crime.
1.-THE single point which requires consideration is
this Can the President be restrained from carrying
out act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional
It is assumed by the counsel tor the State of Mlsss
sippi that the President, in the execution of the
construction acts is required to perform mere minis
teria duty In this assumption there is, think,
compromising of the terms ministerial and executive
which by no means equivalent IN import. A min
isteria duty the performance of hchmay in proper
cases be required by the head of department by
judicial process is one which nothing is left to dis
creton. It is simple definite duty arising under
consultations admitted proved to exist imposed
by law. The case of Marbury Madison, l Cranch,
1877, furnishes illustration. A citizen had been
nominated, confirmed and appointed Justice of the
Peace for the District of Columbia, and his commits
sion had been made out and sealed Nothing remained
to be done except the delivery imposed by law on
the Secretary of State 1t was held that the perform
ance of this duty might be enforced by mandamus
issuing from court having jurisdiction. So in the
case of Kendall Postmaster General, vs.. Stockton y
Stokes, II Peters, 527. An act of Congress had d.
rected the Postmaster General to credit Stockton Il
Stokes with such the Solicitor of the Treasury
should find due Them and that officer refused to credit
them with sums so found due. 1t was held that the
crediting of money was a ministerial duty, the
performance of which might be enforced. In each Of
those cases nothing was left discretion. There
no room for the exercise of Judgment. The law re-
quired the performance of single specicact, and the
performance, it was held, might be required by man
damus.
Every different is the duty of the President in the
exercise of the power that the laws faithfully
executed and among these laws the acts named in the
bill BY the first OF these acts he is required to assign
Generals to command in the several military forces to
enable such military officers to enforce the duties
der the law.
by the supplementary act, other duties are imposed
necessarily be performed under the supervision OF the
President as Commander-in- Chief The duty imposed
on the President is in ministerial; it purely
executive and political. An attempt the part of
the judiciary of the Government to enon the perfor
nance of such duties by the President might be justly
characterised in the language Of Chief Justice Mar
SHALL as an absurd and excessive extravaganza.
1t is true that in the instance before US, the inter
position of the Court is not sought to enforce action
by the Executive under constitutional legislation, but
to restrain such action under legislation alleged to be
unconstitutional But are unable to perceive that
this circumstance takes the out of the general
principle which forbids judicial interference with the
exercise of Executive discretion 1t was admitted,
in the argument, that the application made to US
is without precedent and this is ofmuch weight against
it. Had been supposed at the bar that this Court
would in any case interpose to arrest the execution
Of an unconstitutional of Congress, it hardly
be presumed that the object would not have been
heretofore addressed to it, Such occasions have been
frequent. The consttutiouaty of the act for the
nexation of Texas was vehemently denied. 1t made
important and permanent changes, of Importance to
States and Sections and. by many supposed to be
pregnant with disastrous results to large interests in
particular States but one seems to have thought
of application for in junction against the execu
ton of the act by the President. And yet it is diff
cult to perceive upon what principle the application
now before can be allowed, and similar applications
in that and other cases could have been denied. The
any case, indicates that the general judgment of the
profession has been that such application should
be entertained 1t will hardly be eontended that the
Court can nterpose in any case to restrain heenact
ment of unconstitutional law and yet how the
right to judicial interposton prevent such enact
ment when the purpose is evident and the execution
of that purpose certain be distinguished in princpl
from the right to such nterposition against the
ton of such law by the President. Congress is the
Legislative department of the Government. The Pres
dent ID the Executive department. Neither be
restrained in its action by the Judicial department.
though the acts of both, when performed in proper
subject to its cosnsance. The improperly Of
such interference will be clearly upon consdera
ton of its probable consequences. Suppose the bill
filed and the injunction prayed for be allowed 1t the
President refuses obedience, it is needless to observe
that the Court is without the power to enforce its pro-
cess If, on the other hand, the President complies
with the order of the Court and refuses to execute the
act of Congress- is it clear that collision may
cur between the Executive and Legislative depart
ments of the Government? May not the House OF
Representatives impeach the President for such refu
SAL and in that could this Court nterpose in be-
half of the President thus endangered by compliance
whts mandate, and restrain the Senate of the Uni
ted States from sitting as court of impeachment?
ould not the strange spectacle be offered to public
wonder of attempt by this Court to arrest proceed
ings in that COURT These questions answer them
selves. 1t is true State may file an original bill in
this Court and it may be true in some cases that
bill may be filed against the United States, but are
fully satisfied that this court has jurisdiction in
case to enoin the President from the performance of
his official duties, and that such bill ought to be
received by 1t is Of the provisions of this bill
that if the relief sought cannot be obtained against
Andrew johnson as President of the United States it
may against Andrew johnson citizen of Tennes
see; but it is plain that relief against Andrew john
is relief against its execution, against act of
Congress- by restraining the incumbent of the pres
dental Office and cannot be received, whether it de-
"Thc motion for leave to file bill is therefore de-
nied.n
The opinion having been delivered, the Chief JUS
tice announced that the Court will not sit Friday,
it being Good Friday, and that Thursday would be
as motion day.
He also added: In the case of the State of Georgia
against certain officers of the United States the Attor
ney General makes opposition to filing the bill and
we therefore grant leave to file the bill.
Mr.. Sharkey-If the Court please, the objection to
the bill which attempted to file seems to be that it
IS an attempt to eDoin the President The bill is not
fled and reform it to suit the views of the Court
and-present it again.
The Chief Justice-Leave to file the bill is refused |
When another bill is presented it will be considered
Mr.. Sharkey-Do I understand the Court to say |
hat the application can be made on Thursday?
The Chief Justice-On Thursday. |
OPINIONS OF ROBERT E. lea correspondent of
.he New York Herald had an interview with Gen. Lee