The New York herald., 1867-04-16
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
Opinion Of Chief Justice Chase In the
Mississippi Injunction Case.
The Executive Of the Nation Cannot be
Restrained by the judiciary.
The Motion to File the Bill
Denied.
Decision In tho Case Of Duane vs. Tho San
Francisco Vigilance Committee.
The Prize Steamer PeterhoF Restored to
Her Owners.
&c. &c. Go. tA
The Mississippi Injunction aCase--Opinion Of
Chief Justice Chase.

and L. o. O. Ord General commanding in the
district Of Mississippi and Arkansas from executing
in any manner carrying out certain acts OF Congress
therein named The referred those Of March
land March 23 1857. commonly known as the. Recon.
sruction acts. The Attorney General objected to the
leave asked for upon the grounds that bill which
makes the President defendant and seeks injuno
tion against HIM to restrain the performance OF hts
duties President should be allowed to b, filed this
court This point has been fully argued and will
now dispose OF it We shall limit our inquiry to
the question presented by the objection, without ex-
pressing any opinion the broader issues discussed
argument whether in any case the President OF the
United States may be required by the process OF this
court 70 perform pursiy ministerial act required by
law, may be held amenabie in any case, Otherwise
than by impeachment. for crime The single point
which requires consideration Ia ths:-Can the Presideu
be restrained from carrying into effect Congress
alleged 10 be unconstitutionalf Is assumed by the
counsel for the State Of Mississippi that the President
In the execution Of the Reconstruction acts, is
required to perform . nero ministerial duty. In
the terms "mnisterian and executive" which are BY
no means equivalent In import ministerial duty, the
performance OF which may In proper be required
Of the head OF department by judicial process Is one
In respect TO which nothing is left to discretion 1t is
SIMPLE, denn.e au.y. arising under conditions admitted
bury Va Madison Secretary Of the Treasury Cranch
1877 furnishes an illustration citizen had been nom
mated confirmed and appointed justice Of the peace
for the District Of Columbia and his commission had
been made out, signed and sealed nothing remained to
imposed BY a~ on the Secretary Of State Il was held
that the performance OF this duty might enforced by
m %.5damas no issuing from cour. having jurisdiction 50
and ssokes az Peters, 527 An act or Congress had
direosed the Postmaster General TO credit Stockton and
should nd due them, and that officer refused to credit
tnem Win certain sums % iound due Il vas held that
srS au NE monoS q nAcs n'sS %D
DO enforced In each Of these cases. ) Nothing
for de sxsrcso Of Judgment. The law - required aired
the performance Of single specific act aud that per-
formancs, it was held, might be required by mandaus
Very different s the duty Of the President In the
ciss Of the power 70 that the laws faithfully
cutsd and among these laws the named in the bill
eras 70 command IN the several military districts and
TO deia safcsnt military orceo enable such officers
Elementary act other duties arc imposed on tho several
commanding generas and their duties must necessarily
Oomnandsr-in Chiaf The duty thus imposed on the
Presidens h IN no just sense ministerial = is purely
sxscsys exc ard political Az M atemp, On the part Of
the performance Of such duties by the President
might be justly characterized IN the language OF Chief
Justice Marshall as IAN absurd and excessive extrava
gance" II true that in the instance before the
nterpcson Of the Court is sought action
restrain such action under legislation alleged be
constitutional But we are unable to perceive that this
which forbids judicial inserfsrencs with the Of
Executive discretion. was admitted in tho argument
tha. the application now made TO US without prece
dent, and this ID Of much weight against Il. Had II
been supposed at the bar this Court would any
intspose TO arrest the execution OF unconsttu
tona act Of Congress il hardly be doubted that ap
pl,calons with that object would been heretofore
addressed 10 II Occasions have not been unfrcquent
of rs9s: wss xsSs@snsy % dsaea d. mass %
portant and permanent changes In the relative import
ance Of States and secons and was by many supposed
In particular Staes but one seems 10 have thought
Of application for injunction against tho execution
perceive upon what principle the application before
cau be allowed and similar applications IN that and
such application was ever before made 10 sny case iud
Gates the general judgment Of the profession that
such application should be entertained It win hardly
restrain the enactment Of unconstitutional law aud
yet how the right judicial iuterposIion prevent
tho execution Of purpose certain be disng in
principle from the rgh 70 such inteposion against he
the isssssive depsrsment of the rovernmens The
President 10 the executive department Neither be
restrained in its action by the judicial department,
subject 70 ts cognzance Tho OF such
interference viii be clearly upon consideration Of
the inuncion prayed for be allowed II The President
refuse obedience s needless to observe that the
Court sni Without power 70 enforce It's process e
order OF the Court and refuses to execute the act
Of Congress, Is IL not clear that collision may
ments Of the government May mot the House
Of Representatives impeach tho President for such
rcfus.f And in That case could this court intepose in
behalf Of tho President thus endangered by compliance
with s mandate, and restrain by injunction the Senate
OF the United States om sitting court OF npeach-
public wonder Of attempt BY this court arrst pro-
ceedngs In that COURT These questions answer them.
selves ,,, true tnst ssass may me an ors,nai a
bill may BE- led AGAINST the United States but We arc
fully satsaed that this court has no Jurisdiction 81
bill 70 enjoin the President in the performance OF his
oca duties and that such bill ought to be received
py us h has been suggested that the bill contains
against Andrew johnson - Presdcu II NAV be granted
against Andrew johnson citizen OF Tennessee; but
~ pam mat relief sssns. tho execution Of an acs
execution by the President bill praying an injunction
against me execution Of Of Congress By the in-
whether u describes him President or simply as
citizen Of State The motion FOR leave 70 ie ihe bill
The opinicn having been delivered the Crxy yusucx
announced that the Court would not sit on mart Eraav
az moon day he also added in the csss eo ~ n
Of GeOrxa against certain officers the ATTORNEY
mskss no objection 70 .ns a., ming q the b and we will
Mr. SaARKn--If the Court please the objection "a
the bill which attempted TO he seems 70 be that ID
an attempt 10 enoin the President The bill Ia not alea
and can reform 70 70 suit the views Of the Court and
Tbe Cursv JUsrSus-Ieavs 10 nle the bill, Is refused
when another bill 10 presented IL will be considered.
Mr.. SHARxkr-Do understand the Court 70 say the
aDljcation can be made on Thursdayf
he CHIEF JUsrsu-On Thursday. ~
Aule Of the United states suprsme Court reads a
follos- t9s# ~ tas Ai9A
Prosss issued out OF this Court In any SUIT In equ
shall served on the defendant sixty days before th
return aid procem
To-day be Court issued subp0nas 70 issue against tn
defsndann the Georgia bill Of complaint case, aspraye
w the petitioner The Court will adjourn In May, an
the sxv '@ys required by the rule cannot occur b
tween now and h' time the return day must necessaril
Dc ths nsxt regulss term Of The court. N Decsmb<
.ttyHfmsotN 4iUafsl 4a bets4 sav ifHNa