New-York tribune., 1867-04-13

Uadmand for certain things by him in his capacity
OF Governor Of Quebec The ease was argued 90 ooo
Justice Willis and Mr. JHstiee ah ,hr Butler S. held tGst
opnjons were quoted. The of Gldley ag Lord Pal
Broderp and BINGHAM ~ To WAS hex y, qp"ha
polcy an action will not lie against persons actng ~
side referred TO case Ohio where a mandamns was
ed against the Governor the relation Of corpora
0nnor Sn IN 1h&s Was s'ai directed by law to issue GER
tain proclamation upon the existence m ecIa" ,h,
as the thing done did not necessarily appertala 70
the office OF Governor but was simply adny imposed ~
statute the Court might issue nandamus 10 coulpei
tho performance OF the Ministerial act prescribed Dy stat
ute This disposed OF al tha a,hoTs e c e'se bc moed m
Judge story's commentaries Section ioG' IA 'ne''
T6sre are other incidental powers belonging the E,eegys De
partmen necessarily implied from the nairre o. 'ne en-
"a reynp Them without sny obstrurous npneut whatever
n. 5tS. /, seIs9 be 0s he g u l5' BIZ os & this
purpose person deemed in e' eases at least TO possess "
Nobody has ever said than that in regard to the
court ia concerned. When is exempt from All pro
ceedngs any court he pro hdc rtoe O9ve tne iw %
Is inVolablc, and that, says MT Justce et14
exactly what belongs 10 the President OF INC Unitou
States. IL il true, the learned commentator ,SI,
himself TO civil liability think, without any dleuty;
he might have extended 70 criminal naDy ~ anu p VIII
say Of the President as said o. sp o se mn
moment Of passion as TO commit II you piease .hr sn
crime OF murder ne t Soo %, M bci the renresenfaye Of
the nation and the nation deal with him before they
aIow court 10 deal with him. They say: Az long as
,t man is our President no tribunal shall touch him for
ANYTHING until deal with him. >When We deai WIN
him and remove him, and strip from him the robes
nf Office then take him and punish him you please
and he deserves, but not TIL then Ne ne 10 lIes
or president aud nothing else Whatever the individual
may have done punish him for II lnhvlduaiy pui 'h %
not from him the nyioabity OF his oifce NtN, u tno
Court please although the argument ~ seems 10 nr' -
unanswerabe upon the ground tat tne ~ su d,S i tha
against the President, yet II IL not deuit tO SHOW ..
tne suit in fact. il against the United states, just
much as II 1t We're drought agains. th nnihority
Of this Court refer your hOnofs now 10 ne esc VI a @
Governor OF "eoIslh w, Su an s',t aCans The GOV
The question came UP mere on st asas1 III to Goy
crnor of n State. What meant by saying the Gov
shall delivering tile opinion "The claim upon the Cover
nor is as Governor. lie is such not by his name but Dy
his title demand upon him u not made pisohhly
but officially" II seems the suit was Hg1ns, nn Do
Governor by the description OF G0VeIhor Wtnout ie"
named but he named President and the SUIT agahs.
him is in his official cpaciiy Tor hls eonac 80 t g
the person but against the officer as II would Dc heIc
against the President not 10 70 eAeeuc INC w. i. case
the Chief Magistrate OF state issued not by his name
uncn him is entirely in his ofcia character We think
the state itself may be considered party IA the record
Again din u Peters 6lO the Court says; THE Executve
power vested In the President as far as ms pOwef
derived Constitution He is beyond the reaen .,
the Constitution-thTOugh the inpeachlhR PoWW,I.
There Ia; as President ne Is beyond lne ~ any
other department, except hrougthe lpeaehing poMei
For what Is he reached by the hnpeacmug loweI'
ho
according TO this for the highest crimes and nsdcnea
ors he Is above President the power OF any Court OF
cbdlmbcr can Won arraign him for anything done or
omitted be done while he Is president alay IL pc'c
yor s oesop mSaSIs So s far as this S seeks 10 make the
President party, have said from the frst that u
else the taste with which this bin was drawn, no,
the word in is common vulgar aSegp'"o1' @ % grCb
no town In the United States for one moment sustain
Therefore, it ~ that dmics osrd or as law oiiiccr
he
motion made 10 file this BILL 20 attempt 10 Keep 80
with the appreciation, advice and instruction OF the
President that appear hear % 70 mako ms 90 0oss, y
own motion as the law officer Of the Government
but this must say, IN defense OF the ffcsdent Al
though the gentlemen In their bill have sald that he mas
yet0ed these acts OF Congress unconstitutional when
the President did that he did ey thing that e INTENDED
to In opposition 20 these laws From te nahe t.a'
they were passed his Veto there was but one s'
in his estimation resting upon nun, ana ta' W, Mm & ia "a
fully 10 carry and execute those laws lie ns III
str1cted inc TO cay that IN making tins J, NJ no.
for the purpoge OF escaping from any responsibility clthe
to perform refuse to perform the duties lposo"
he preliminary objection presented by my learned ana
distinguished brother, the Attorney General divides
itself properly into two PARTS first, whether under the
Constitution Of the United states the Government o the
United States can be sssd In any 1 10 Tsran the
President OF the United states by injunction lssuig 0 rn
this Cogr from carrying , h,T seT1 and m therefore S
constitutional and void being proceeding 10 eo INC
duty Tor by his veto he admits ministerial
duty which he is compelled by law 10 do lsi IN fact,
proceeding against the Of the United states
and Whether such b can be entertained by this tribunal
Those questions depead upon the proper OF
fhe Constitution OF the Cnitcd States, and II therefore
became necessary for to read, although II SO iah
lar to the Court that great clause creating 'e Ias ~
the Constitution he proceeded 10 point out the ueehce
between the words used in The grant f%g Of Grsa s
dors, other public Ministers, aud eonsuis ana those
Court EAifs sSa STATE Sa1e 'G%l Uasl Ss jaR'dto
was not confncd as was the pppptInned appfiIaed Juis
the preceding clause that the Court had original Ju
rsdcSn in any ease in h Which state 81 @hs
tiOn. In those where the Court had original ns
Directly sf by ths and neither
impaired destroyed, enlarged nor diminished nor al
source Of iaisdtio IN the present case be derived
from the clause comforting jurisdiction IN the case OF con-
troyersy in which the United States is party Can the
United States sued under that clause OF the Consttu
on. On that subject Congress has expressed the most
definite opinions. IL has constituted the Court OF Claims
and granted appeal from II to the Supreme Court
The Anorty Generai-Allow % say that Is by CON
sent. Sovereign can consent 10 be sued ut any time
and waive his dignity The President cannot Upon the
en e to "s ash that did not read
when l was up q Howard 2ssl, where the Court say
Court as the Government liable sued except
msa s
hr. WGiker-If the Court please entirely concur with
except by its consent; 1t may by direct pro
vision Of the Constitution itself or may consent by
act Of Congress When II TO the exercising Of any
Jurisdiction by suits before inferior Court undoubed
ly there be act Of Congress- but what cali the
attention of the Court TO Ia tsthat the judicial power
does embrace the Of suit against the Government
Congress may grant Jurisdiction 10 individual
acorporaOn the United States directly ia the In
feror Courts Of the Union, but 1t cannot give such
Pas the
to this Court by an original bill H. then, individual
corporation the Government Of the United
States In OF the inferior Courts, unless State
II can sue the Government by an original proceed
II ing In the Supreme Court Of the United
States, what would be the resuti What would be the
consequence Of such construction OF the Constitution
tha of NJ fba Eov