The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-18
The Recon structiOn Law In the Supreme
Court,
Ron the HorLd.

fToHl ule HOTtd.
Our remarks on Tuesday on the late decision,
were founded on the inaccurate Washington
kilograms of the evening papers of the pre-
ceding day. The views then expressed require
revision. The Court did not refuse permission
to file the bill on the simple ground that it
could not, in any case, enjOin the President Ga
point which the Court left undetermined, but
on the ground that the application confounded
ministerial and executive functions, and that
although the Court might in some cases Cat
east with regard to subordinate oficers) en-
join the performance of a strictly ministerial
act, it could not interfere with duties which
are in their nature executive. The Court then
proceeded to argue that the duties required of
the President under the Reconstruction act are
executive, not ministerial, and the applica-
tion was denied on the ground that the judi
ciary department of the Government cannot
restrain the executive department in the dis
charge of executive functions. A decision
resting on this ground clearly fOreshadows the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the Georgia
case. For if it be settled that an injunction
can be issued only in relation to ministerial
acts, and that the things required to be done
in enforcing the Reconstruction act are not
ministerial, it logically follows that the sub
restrained by injunction from executive acts
than the President himself. The reasoning of
the following passage, if attentively examined,
will be seen to be equally applicable to the
President and his subOrdinates:-
"A ministerial duty, the performance of which
may, in proper cases, be required OF the head
of department by judicial process, is one in
respect to which nothing Is left to discretion;
IL Is asimple dt finite duty, arising under con-
dltions admitted orproved TO exist, or imposed
by law. The case OF Marbury against Madison,
Secretary of the Treasury Il CranGh, 1877, fur
nishes an illustration. A citizen had been
nominated confirmed, and appointed Justice
of the Peace for the District Of Columbia and
his commission had Deen made out, signed.
and sealed. Nothing remained to be done but
delivery, and the duty of delivery was imposed
by law on the Secretary of State. IL was held
that the performance OF this duty might be
enforced by mandamus issuing from a court
having Jurisdiction. So in the case of Kendall,
POslmasler-Gen6ral, against Stockton and
Stokes az Peters, 527), an act of Congress had
directed the Postmaster General TO credit
STOCKTON and Stokes with such sums as the
solicitor OF the Treasury should find ne them,
ana that officer refused TO credit them with
certain sums so found due. 1t was held that
the cTedlllng OF this money was mere minis.
Lerlal duty, the performance OF which might
be enforced in each OF these cases. Nothing
was left TO discretion. There was no room
for the exercise of judgment. The law
! required the performance OF q single spe-
enc act, and that performance, 1t was
held, might be required by mandamus. Very
dlnerenI Is The duty of the President in the
! exercise OF the power to see that the laws are
faithfully executed, and among those laws the
acts named In the bill. By the first OF these acts
| ne ls required TO assign generals to command
! in the several military districts, and to detail
sufficient military force TO enable such officers
| TO discharge their duties under the law. By the
| supplementary act other duties are imposed on
| the several commanding generals, and their
duties must necessarily be performed under
| the supervision of the President as Comman-
der-in,Chief The duty thus imposed on the
PreSident is In no just sense ministerial; II Is