The New York herald., 1867-04-06


:S: have original % e' fs. ss'ia sss %
ss with Be shown hereafter Il arises under the const
tuton. and State is party complainanL That State
United states has been settled by this court X
fs Important however. 10 consider whether the
President Of the United States be made party de-
fendans 70 this BILL inasmuch there no prscedeut
has been virtually settled by very nigh Authority II is
between what are called political powers and such -
are ministeriaL In the exercise Of discresionary
or political poxer courts viii not undertake % control
to ministerial duties In the exercise Of which
is above the law however exalted his posit.on For
parliament who are omnipo.ent or above the constisu
shall extend TO all n law equity arising under
this constitution, &c. And thus the judiciary made
the guardians and protectors Of The constitution.
The President but the OF the constitution,
OF the agencies created by TO carry Il practical
operations and would be stiange indeed he should
mens and then claim exemption from the process Of the
court whose duty i y 70 guard y asainst
Of the government and especially when he Il sxeriing
mere ministerial duty for that all ho does exert ln
ecutIng act Of Congress He has no discretion In the
matter The constitution makes distinction a. to
partiea The case s the criterion, no matter who 10
plaintiff or who defendant and II the President be
On this point would perhaps be sufficient 70 refer 70
the very elaborate and able decision Of Chief Justice
Marshall, delivered on the trial Of Aaron Burr An ap-
pcaon was made for subpoena dnces tecnm, 10 be d.
rected 10 the President OF the United States and the a
pcaton resisted the ground that the President
was not amenabe 70 the process Of the Court, and
could not be drawn from discharge Of his duties At
the seat OF government and made TO attend the court
sag ncnm9na QUO rns Cner Jqsse u.s. Es arsw ,ns d
and held that all officers in this country subord.
nate TO the law and must obey its mandate, aud there
only command TO the President TO do particular
thing the Injunction but command TO him not
20 do q particular thing under void authority The
principle is the same in the two cases. well as the
means Of coercng obedience, and the reasoning OF
Chief Justice Marshall completely reaches aud settles the
question now before this court The constitution pro
vdes that all officers may be r.reached but this does
exonerate hem from personal liability for done
under color Of Office the President as ~el As other off,
GERS Tho whole question lies within narrow compass
Tie constitution is supreme all officers subordinate
to the supreme law and consequently subordinate TO
the command OF that department whose duty IL s TO
enforce subordnation by declaring the meaning the
tent and the limitations Of the constitution.
n the President be exempt, why NOT all his Cabinet
department Of the government Yet in the case Of
acts Of the secretary OF the acts OF The Pre-
sdent and that the Secretary might be subjected 70 the
q Se Would nSs g. =
indeed to hold that the subordinate liable and may
be sued for acts which are the acts Of his principal
and yet that the principal 10 mot liable and cannot be
csnsiy this Court has decided thai oacsn q
CO.. q the Court sss Kendall va Stockton I Pa =
Psler 52l; United s,ates va Guthrie, II Howard 25I)
The case Of Ellis vs Earl Grey smons 2l4 y lead
INC England and has bean approved 10 this
ID that decided that the Lords The Treasury
constituting the prominent department Of the executive
msnt Il shas country Tho King supposed 70 b above
the law and Is the fountain Of Justice yet bis Immediate
. sSe Pssdspt Is not sSoys III he sw i above @ him
And hence hs must b subject 70 its seitrainta
me attention q the court is also invited 70 the Do
cision or Chief Justice Barley In the case of tho State
Governor, ohio Rsp SO. The objection was raised
...s: e. opsu css &: =: .a sso. -:
ths rssss.nins authority Of the aw. which Y tray
he 4 ''l sr:ss:sl = sos Osins sssmSs froS il
ssss n.S. s e ~ sn.ss .s...s'isd % ), ). seors q
the State In tho dscharge Of mlnisesria daaies for
g: % = -
under the provisions Of The federal consolidation Gee
Also billiard on ielaneiion s14 s.a sushertss CITED
parting from the power which the law has vested
!. them sSsy ss s'ss%ns v = % so s,s S. S:~
this court longer eossders thsa = eeiing und their
o s,: sn < Z s -:
y the federal constitution, may b treated q % 10.
'f TSird.poss the bin present . case proper for The
inerposition OF this court The conseituton gives 70
the federal judiciary equity Jurisdiction, and % h
familiar principle that wherever Jurisdiction h given
OF jurisprudeucs. II " ample FOR all purposes
connected with the subject o. The branch Of juris
prudence Therefore the Jurisdiction Of this court Is
ample 70 take oognzance 70 the full extent over all
subjects OF equity jursdction We have then but 70
and the relief viii be granted the utmost extent Of
tho powers Of court OF equity. The great distinction
between remedies law ana IN equity M s,a Is .n court
Of equity will prevent their occurrence The
can do nothing. more than give compensation In
e1sa nt1.a tlpn rnrtu
resort the remedy fo- damages by preventing the
mischief And even II there be q remedy at law which
But IN this case there Is no remedy a. law Is case
which equity alone can give relief II there be no
remedy then the federal consttuton not declared
the supreme law OF the land since mere majority In
Congress may exclude States as IL has done In thia
instance; II may blot out States and State const
and ' exercise the absolute power 70 govern them
II this may be done in tho southern States, IL may
Jus: = weI es done IN o;hsr ne Sa.os ana the Vii o.
whatsoever The people or the States which framed the
federal government surely did NOT think t possible that
existence ss States ana yet ibis Sss been done with
four Of tho original States that created the
oou S sqsy nay sy' rsssy AXE @ s1sa and
give tho relief souRhI
In the ss pacs e: iss a under q vi0s.s
tcua,s that u 10 not necessary further 10 attempts 70
enumerate them II doss more Il annus and abrosates
stitutss military power The consultation is Of
course the chief object Of proscction With all cours
When II b about 70 be violated the federal Judiciary will
interpose for s protection Thus In the Of Osborn
va the Bank OF the United States, Wheaton, 7SS,
the federal court took Jurisdiction for the sole
purpose Of protecting constitutional right State
Law violated the constuton, and State ofhcer was
about execute the law, but restrained BY njanc
tion by the federal courts which would not have had
jurisdiction Tho subject matter the olcer but
from the fact that the execution Of the av would have
s Ss ~: e
visiAted, and proper case u presented, tho
federal Judiciary win protect and wherever this court
has original Jurisdiction 10 will certainly act upon the
same principle (Storyss Equity, - -, ITO; Hiliard
Injunctions 9Se State Of fsnnsyyania va Wheeling
Bridge Howard Reports; Martin w Hunter, Wheaton;
Carol Va sanord, How, al; Cohen " Georgia
wheaton, ..
restraining threatened abuse r. St0rys Equity, 706
Hllard Iujuuctione 3lll Surely the constitution
and the rights Of STATE and Of It's people under H.
stand upon much higher ground and have stronger
claim protection than franchise; 70 protect the
one and the other would be 70 protect the lesser and
the greater This prctecson Is always given In ad-
vance or the threatened injury. We ask the appll-
cation Of this principle Ia the present case The bill