The national Republican., 1867-04-13
THE COURTS.

SUPREME CouRr on, rHE UsrrEp SrArRs.-
gsflh Fatpkr. kpril n, 1857
On motion Of Mr.. Duy.nt, JohnB 3. Robertson,
ssq., q Leuisisns, wa. sdniitsd an attorney and
on notion q NJ. oushinx, Abbott vaughan,
80, n New Yofk city. and Z. l. Sherman, esq,
q MkHaehusstts, wsrs sdmiited attorneys and
counf<1lofs of this oourt
On motion Of W. o'Connor, Predsfie aslls,in,
ESQ, Of New York city, was admitted an attor.
ney and counsellor Of this court
On motion Of Mr.. Black, Edward Couan, Of
councillor Of this court.
No, sl1, Hannibal Green, plaintiff In eror,ys
Morria -, Van Huskirk, 81 AZ, and -,
Nc, SIS Charles W. TiIlipghast, st al, vs.
Morris q Yan Baskirk. et II. The srgument Of
The molten 70 dlsmiss thess easss was con.
nsnesd hy Nj, csrli,le in favor Of the ssmsj
continued By Mr.. Trumbuil and Mr. PARKER In
oppostion thsrsto, and concluded By Mr. Gale
In support Of the motion. -. ..s..i
The stats % Mis.issippi vs. Andrew johnson,
President % the United States, Of al Motion
Of Mr. sharksy for leave 10 fis bin. Tho srgu.
mont OF this motion vas commenced BY Mr.. At
torney aenerai stanbsry In opposition thereto,
and eoneiudsd By Mt Robert y. WALKER In sup
port OF the motion. lalfi = Issn 81 10 :
Adjournsd untii Monday st II clock. ~
Txs Misasagpi I.tnnefiosi Argsei on the
Motion 10 Fis--7he Georgia Cas- Snbpiifed
Wahot dreunsst- 7hs Ststs of AI,as,ippi
%. Aadrst0 Johnson and Ofh<ys,-This case was
argued yesterday In the prsssnes of i.rxs
promiscuous Audience, which bad collected 70
hear the Distinguished council engaged in Il.
Among those present were many Senators and
high eiiqers Of the 0overnment ggr5tHa5
Attorney Gsnsrai stAnbsry spoke st eonsidsra-
bic length In opposition V the hling of the bin
In the case, going into the political results that
would follow an Injunction Of such character.
He oontendsd that the action was really one In
which State was plaintiff and the United
States defendant that an action against the
President was an action against the Government,
as he represents the administrative department
thereof, and the majesty Of the law an injunc.
tion to restrain the Executive from enforcing the
laws could not issue This court did not have
Jurisdiction In such q case. It's Jurisdiction
does not embrace political questions and quss.
tions Of Government, such as presented In this
case. In the course Of his remarks Mr.. Stan
berry said that, as the law officer Of tho Govern.
mont, he had advised the President that In case
an injunction issued. II his duty not 10 diso.
Boy %.
This remark apparently caused some sepsa.
ton on the bench and among lawyers present.
and created much surprise, II was considered
rs quite inconsistent with the Attorney Generals
known character for reticonce.
Hon. Robert J. Walker supported the motion
for leave to file the bill, he also citing quite q
| number Of decisions-three emanating from
| Chief Justice MArshAl-whch seemed to sustain
the views he advanced. Tho Constitution had
extended the judicial power Of this court to
cases Of this character and there was nothing In
the way Of the issuance Of the injunction. The
very character Of the case itself called for the
interference Of court Of equity. There was no
other means known TO the courts to prevent the
mischief which would fow from the execution Of
the law sought to be set aside as unconstitu
tional and void.
| After tho conclusion of the argument in th,
above case Charles 0'Connor, Esq, Of New York
moved for leave to file the bill In the Georgii
| case
The Chief Justice said the court would tax,
the motions In the cases under advisement, ant
that II It was desired that further argumen
should be bad, counsel would be notified.