The New York herald., 1867-04-16

The Prize Steamer PeterhoF Restored to
Her Owners. M
&s, &c. 60.
Tho Mississippi Injunctiou aCase--Oplnion Of
Chief Justice Chase. sss
WASHINGTON. April Is, 1867.
In the United States Supreme Court TO- day the Chief
Justice delivered the opinion OF the Court in the Of
the State OF Mississippi Androw johnson. President
Of the United States. and Z O. G.. Ord, the motion
for leave TO nle bill IS follows;--
emotion was made some days since in behalf Of tho
State Of Mississippi for leave TO nle bill the Of
the State, praying this court perpetuay enjon and
restrain Andrew Johnson President of the United States
and Z. 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 to those of March
and March 2s, 1851. commonly known the Recon.
structon acts The Attorney General objected to the
leave asked for upon The grounds that bill which
makes the President defendant and seeks injuno
ton against him 10 restrain the performance OF hts
duties President should be allowed b, ed this
court This point has been fully argued, and we will
now dispose OF 1t We shall limit our inquiry to
the question presented by the objection without ex-
pressing any opinion the broader issues discussed in
argument, whether in any the President OF the
United States may be required by the process OF this
court 70 perform pursly ministerial act required by
law, may be held amenabie in any case Otherwise
than by impeachment for crime. The single point
which requires consideration thisCan President
be restrained from carrying act Of Congress
alleged 10 be unconstutonalf II Is assumed by the
counsel for the Slate Of Mississippi that the President.
In the execution Of the Reconstruction acts is
required TO perform q nero ministerial dutv In
tS. X. n con linz of
the terms "ministeral' and executive" which are BY
no means equivalent in import ministerial duty. the
performance Of which may In proper be required
Of the heed OF department by judicial process one
IN respect to which nothing left to discretion It
simple, definite duty, arising under conditions admitted
or proved to exist or imposed by law The Of Mar
bury Va Madison, Secretary Of the Treasury Il Cranch
13 furnishes an illustration. citizen had been
mated, confirmed and appointed justice Of the peace
for the District OF Columbia, and his commission had
been made out signcd and sealed nothing remained to
be done except delivery and the du,y of delivery was
imposed by aw on the Secretary OF State. It held
that the performances OF this duty might be enforced by
mandamus issuing from court having Jurisdiction So
in the case OF Kendall Postmaster General Va Stockton
and Stokes az Peters, SGD An act Of Congress had
Stokes with such sums the Solicitor OF the Treas ury
should nnd due them. and that officer to credit
them vi certain sums iound due 1t was held that
the credtng q this money was a mare min
iatsria duty, the performances Of which might
was iors 70 discretion; there was no room ! room
for the exercisc Of judgment The law required
sSs Si %.ia single specific aud n. per
VERY different is duty OF the President in the exer
else q tho power 70 see that the laws faithfully
oued and among these laws the acts named In the bill
By the rst Of these acts he is required to assign
srals % command IN the several military districts
20 discharge their duties under the law BY the sup
Elementary act other duties are imposed the several
commanding generals and their duties must necessarily
be performed under the supervision Of the President as
Oommander-in Chiaf. The duty thus imposed the
executive ard political. An attempt on the part OF
the judicial department. Of the government to enoin
might b. justly ehaacerssca in the language Of Ch,oi
Justice Marshall IAN absurd and extrava.
a sDass
by the Executive under constitutional legislation
restrain such action under legislation alleged be
constitutional But unable to perceive that this
takes the OF the general principle
which fobids judicial interference with the or
Executive discretion. admitted in the argument
that the application made without prece-
dent and this 10 Of much weight against It. Had IL
bsen supposed at the bar that this Court would in any
case atssposs to arrest the execution or an unconsu.
tional act Of Congress II hardly be doubted that
pcatons with that object would nave been heretoore
addressed TO II Occasions have not been unfrcquent
Of Texas was vshemsntly denied. made Inn.
Of States and sections and by many supposed
be pregnant with DISASTROUS results large interests
Of an application for injunction against execution
Of the act by the President; and yet II Is difficult TO
US can be- allowed and similar applications in that and
other could have been denied. The fact that
such application was ever before made In any ndi
Gates the general judgment Of the profession no
such application should be entertained II will hardly
bo contsrded that Congress nterposs In any
yet how the right judicial uterposon TO prevent
such an enactment, when the purpose Is evident and
the execution Of that purpose certain in
principle from the ght to such inerposon against The
execution Of such aaw by the President Tue Congress
President Is the executive department. Neither can be
restrained in It's action by the judicial department,
though che acts q boh when performed are in proper
interference will be clearly upon consideration Of
its probable consequences. Suppose the bill fled and
refuse obedience II Is needless TO observe that the
Court Is without power 70 enforce its process IT.
a o. s TO Win S
OF Congress, is IL not clear that collision may
occur between the executive and legislative depart
OF Reprcssntstiyes impeach the President for such
refusas And In hat could this court nterpose In
with It's mandate and restrain by injunction the Senate
OF the United States from sitting court OF impeach
ments Would the strange spectacle b offered TO the
ceedngs in that courtf These questions answer them:
selves II ID true that State may file an original
bin may be fled against the United States; but
fully satisfied that this court has no Jurisdiction cf
oca duties and that no such bin ought to Be received
by rs y has been suggested that the bill contains
prayer that II tho relief sought cannot be obtained
against Andrew johnson President may be granted
against Andrew johnson citizen OF Tennessee; but
pam that relief against the execution Of an act
OF Congress py Andrew johnson II relief against ito
execution oy the President bill praying injunction
against the exscuton OF Of Congress BY the in
cumbsnt o. the Presidential once cannot be received,
whether u describes him President or simply as
citizen Of State The motion for leave TO ole The bill
"a therefore denied y - -
The opinion having been delivered, the CHry Jusucx
announced that the Court would sit on next Friday
IL being Good Friday. and Thursday would bc
an motion day. He also added the case Of sba stsc
Of Georgia against certain oncers the Attorney General
therefore grant leave 10 Gle that bill ""'
Mr. SaARkn-If the Court please, the objection "a
ths bill which attempted TO hle seems be thai Il ,s
an attempt to enjoIn the President Tho bill Ia moi asa
and can reform 70 suit the views Of the Court and
The CHrsr Jusrus-Ieave 10 le the bill Is refused
when another bill ID presented IL will be considered.
Mr. SHARKsr-Do understand the Court 70 say the