Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1867-04-19

ing out an Act OF Congress alleged to be
unconstitutional 1t is assigned by coun-
sci for the State Of Mississippi, that the
President, in the execution of the Recon
stTuction Acts, is required to perform mere
ministerial duty. In this assumption is, we
think, a compromising of the terms Ministe
rial and Execatioe, which are by no means
equivalent in import. A Ministerial duty,
the performance of which may in proper
cases be required by the head Depart
ment by judicial process, is one in respect
to which nothing is left to discretion. 1t
is simple, definite duty, arising under
conditions admitted or proved to exist or
| imposed by law.
The case of Maubury VS.. Madison, Sec
retary of State, | Cranch, 1871, furnishes an
| ted, confirmed and appointed a Justice of
the Peace for the District of Columbia, aud
his commission hal been made out and
sealed. Nothing remained to be done cx
| cept delivery, and the duty of delivery was
imposed upon the Secretary of State. II
was held that the performance of this duty
might be enforced by mandamus, issuing
| from court having jurisdiction. So, in
the case of Kendall. Postmaster General,
persus Stockton e Stokes-l2 Peters, 527.
An act of Congress had directed the Post
master General to credit ST 0ckton & Stokes
with such sums as the Solicitor of the
! Treasury should find due them. and that
officer refused to credit them with sum so
| found due 1t was held that the credi ting
of money was n mere ministerial duty, the
performance of which might he enforced
in each of these cases. Nothing was left
I for discretion. There was no room for the
exercise of judgment. Law required the
performance of a single specific act. and
that performance. it was held, might be
required by a m0ndamus.
Very different is the duty of the Presi-
dent in the exercise of power to see that
the laws are faithfully executed. and
among these laws acts named in the BILL
BY the first of these acts. he is required to
assign Generals To command in the sever
al military districts, and To detail sufli-
cicnt military force to enable such military
officers to enforce duties under the law
BY the supplementary act. other duties are
imposed on the several Commanding Gen
erals, and their duties must necessarily be
performed under the supervision of the
President. rs Commander inChicf. The
duty imposed upon the President is in no
sense ministerial 1t is purely executive
and political. An attempt on the part of
the Judiciary of the Government To enjoin
the performance of such duties by the
President. might he fully characterized in
the language OF Chief Justice Marshall rs
an absurd and excessive extravaganza II
Is true that in the instance before us the
interpOsition of court is not sought To en-
force action b. the Executive. under con
estitutional legislation, but To restrain such
action under legislation alleged to be I'M
constitutional. But we arc unable to per
ceivc that this circumstance takes the case
out Of the general principle which forbids
judicial interference with The exercise al
Executive discretion. Ii was admitted in
the argument that the application now
made to uS is without precedent. and this
is Of much weight against il. Had it beer
e supposed at this bar that this Court would
in any case intcrpOsc 10 arrest the cyccu
tion OF an unconstitutional act of Congress
il can hardly he presumed that the objcc
: would not have been heretofore addrc>sct
o To it. Such occasions have been frequent
The cOnStiuiionality of the act for the an
ncXation of Texas was vehemenily denied
Ii made important and permanent change
. I TO the tleiriment of States and sections. ant
r was 10y many supposed To be pregnant will
disastrous results to large interests i'm par
: ticular States bnt no one seems to have
l thought of an application for an injunction
c against the execution of the act bv tn
President, and vet it is difficult Ia pcrcciv
upon what principles the application nov
= before us can be allowed and similar appli
: cations in that and other cases could hav
been denied. The fact that no such appli
cation was ever before made in any case
/, indicates the general judgment of the pro
fcssion that no such application should b
: entertained. 1t will hardly he contende
that Congress can intcTpoSc in any case {
restrain the enactmen. OF an uncOnstituiion
: nj law. and vet how can the right to judi
II cial iDterposition To prevent such enact
ment. when the purpose is evident and ih
execution of that purpose certain. he iii.
tnguished in principle from the right 4
such inlerpOsitiOn against the execution {
;; such law 10y the President
Congress is the Legislative department
/ ofthc Government the President is I'll
: Executive department Neither can /
= restrained in its action by the Judicial ID,
>. partment, though acts Of both, when pei
g formed, are subject To its cognizancc.-
The improperly of such interference wi
he clearly seen upon the consideration
II its probable consequences. Suppose ii
bill filed and an Injunction prayed 70
he allowed. Ii the President refuse 0b
n diencc. it Is needless 10 observe that Il
re Court is without power TO enforce its pr
III cess. If. on the other hand. the Prcsidel
: complies with the order OF the Court. an
g. refuses To execute the act of Congress. is
x not clear that a collision may occur betwcC
TO the Executive and Legislative Department
n of the Government? Nav not the Hou
es of Representatives impeach the Preside
60 Al. a
r. Court interfere in behalf of the Preside
~ thus endangered 10y complying with its ma
h, date and restrain the Senate of the CnitG
a States from sitting as Court of impeac
n ment: Would not the strange spectac
h., he offered to the public wonder of an a
:, tempt by this Court to arrest proceedin
be in that Court? These questions answ
at themselves.
re- 1t is true, n State may file an original b
in this Court. and il may be true in son
4 cases that a bill may be filed against II
~ United States; but we are fully statistic
m this Court has no jurisdiction in the case
he enjoin the President from the pcrforman
III of his official duties, and that no such b
To ought to be received by us. II is orc
the provisions of this bill that if the reli
% sought cannot be obtained against Andre
;s- Johnson, as President of the United Stat,
al it may against Andrew Johnson as a eli
zen OF Tennessee, but il is plain that reli
MS against Andrew johnson is no relief again
ne its injunction, against an act of Congrc:
mo- by restraining The incumbent of the pre-
iii dental office, and cannot be receive
g whether il describes him as President
m. as citizen ola State.
ea The motion of leave 10 file the bill
- therefore denied.
inn The opinion having been delivered. 4
Chief Justice announced that the Cou
of would not sit on next Friday, and Thur
no day would be substituted as motion ola
mr. He also added in the case of the State
Georgia against certain officers of {
-D;4 aI A.t a., Il 4.