New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1867-04-16
RECONSTRUCTION.
TILE MISSISSIPPI INJUNCTION.

WASHINGTON, Monday. April IS, 1867.
! In the United States Supreme Court to-day the
| Chief Justice delivered the opinion OF the Court in
the case of the State Of Mississippi agt Andrew John
SON. President of the United States. ana Il. o. u Ord,
on the motion for leave 10 file bill, as follows
A motion was made days since, on behalf OF the
state of Mississippi for to file bill In the name OF
the STATE prayng this Court perpetualy to enoin and
restran Andrew Johnson President OF the United States
and f. O. c. ord General commanding IN the District OF
| Mississippi and Arkansas. from executing OF IN
any manner carrying out certain acts OF Con
| cress therein named. The acts referred TO
are those of March 2 and March %. 1867, commonly
known as the Reconstruction acts The httorney-Gen'
era objected to the asked for upon the grounds That
no bill which makes the President defendant and seeks
an Injunction against him to restrain the performance OF
| his duties az President, should be allowed TO be
filed in this Court This point has been fully argued
and We will now dispose OF t. 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 case the President OF the Un
states may required by tho process OF TINS court 10
perform purely ministerial act required ny h wv,
or NAV held amenabe in any case otherwise hah W
Impeachment for crime. The single point when requires
consideration is this the President be restrained from
carrying into effect of Congress alleged 10 DC I'M
constitutional IL is assumed by the late C0unse TOT INC
State of Mississippi that the President, IN tse
ministerial duty. In this assumption there U.s. We anh
compromising of the terms Ministerial anu 'not
tive which by no means equivalent III import "A
ministerial duty the performance OF when may IN p1pe
required OF the heau OF
process, IS one III respect 10 wien noi,ms arisins
| To dscretion IL is simple. DEFINITE duty aIlslnS
under conditions admitted proved to exist OF imposed
by law The of Marbury agt Madison SeGretat3 O
the Treasury Cranch, l37l, furnishes an lustaon
Justice Of the Peace for the District of Columbia and
his commission had been made out, signed ana sealed
Nothing remained TO he done except delivery ana tne
duty of delivery imposed, by law on the secretary
OF State II was held that the performance OF TINS duty
might he enforced by mandamus issuing from court
having Jurisdiction. So In tho case al henuaI r ,o
masterG General a Stockton and Stokes 9 Peters, o!
| had
10 credit stockton and stokes with such sums as the
Solicitor Of the Treasury should find que them a9 sns
officer refused credit them with certain sums 80 Ouhd
due. 1t held that the erediting OF thls n9niie{
mere ministerial duty the performance , Ei VIII.
might be enforced In each of these cases NOthhs was
left discretion. There no room for the exeIce l
Judgment The law required the performance OF single
specfc act and that performance II held. might be
required by mandamus Very different Is the duly oi the
President in the exercise of the power TO that the
laws are faithfully executed and among those laws, tho
acts named in the bill BY the first oil these acts he Is re-
mrcd 10 assign Generals to command in the several
military districts and 10 detail sufficient military force
10 enable such officers 20 discharge their duties uhur te
law by the supplementary act, other duties are I'M
posed on the several commanding Generals, and thor
duties necessarily bc performed under the SUPER
vision OF the President, Commandment Chief Ihe
duty thus imposed the President H. III no Just sense
ministerial: It is purely executive and political An az
tempt the part Of the Judicial Department OF the
Government To enoin the performance OF such duties NY
the President might he Justly charnciernized' ia
the language Of Chief justice MatSnail' 90
ian absurd and excessive extravaganza" II Is true
that in the instance before us the on oi tc
Court is not sought 10 enforce action by tc ENecnNe
under Constitutional legislation but to RESTRAIN such AZ
legislation
unable 10 perceive that this crtums IatG mi
the out Of the general principle when ioDus luu
cal interference with the exercise ar Executive dcre
ton II admitted in the argument ihat the hppn'a
tOn made TO us Is without precedent ana ,na.
of much weight against it, Had 1t been supposed AZ Tue
bar that this Court would IN any case hterpose 20 ar
the execution OF an unconstitutional act of Congress
w"nid have been heretofore addressed Occasions
have been frequent The Consttutionhy OF no aet 10,
the annexation Of Texas was vehemently denied. IL
made Important and permanent changes IN the relative
Importance of states and sections. and was ny many sup
posed pregnant with disastrous results 10 large IN
erests particular States; but DO one seems 10 nave
thought OF application for an Injunction against me
execution Of the by the President, and yet IL u am
cult to perceive upon what principle the apphcauon
now before us can be allowed ana similar aPpISa'o ,
that application ever before made IN any
no surh application should be entertained II will hardly
be cOntendrd that Congress can nteose IN any case 10
restrain the enactment Of an unconstitutional Law and
vet how can the right judicial ntepOsiton 10 prevent
such enactment when the purpose Is evident ana the
execution OF that purpose certain, be dstngulshca IN
principle from the right 90 such interpolation against
the execution such law by the President The Con
grcss is the Legislative Department OF the Goyerhmen
The President IA the Executive Department Neither can
be restrained in ts action by the judicial Department
though the acts of both when performed are IA proper
cases subject to y; InS ~
~ proiaIic consequences Suppose the bill filed and
the Injunction prayed for DE allowed II the President
refuse obedience Is needless 10 observe that The Court
il without power 10 It's process IT, on the other
hand the President complies with the order of the Court
and refuses TO execute the set Of Congress NOT clear
that "a collision may between the Executive ana
Legislative Departments Of the Government May not the
House Representatives impeach the President Tor such
refusa And in that could this Court interpose III
behalf Of the President, thus ENDANGERED by
the United states nom sitting as court OF
Would not the strange spectacle be Offered 10 the puD
wonder OF attempt by this Court TO arrest pOceedh
m that Court These questions answer themselves III
is true that state may file an original bl IN tns C9nr
and IL may De true, in such bill may be ted
against the United states but are fully satisfied That
this has Jurisdiction OF bill To eDoin the Ptes
dent IN the performance his official dute. and that no
such bill ought be- received by us. IL has been slg
gesed that the bill contains prayer that the relief
dent IL may granted against Andrew Johnson IS cit
zen Tennessee but IT is plain that relief against the
execution of an act Congress by Andrew Johnson -
lief against its execution by the President bill pray
gress by the incumbent Of the Presidential office cannot
be received, whether describes him a., fre'denl OF
| file the bill is therefore denied
The opinion having been delivered the Chief Justice
nounced that the Court would not cit next Friday 1t
being Good Friday, and Thursday would be substituted
as motion day He also added In the OF the state Of
Georgia ag certain Officers the Attorney General makes
objection 10 the filing OF the bull and We Will therefore
Mr. sharEey-if the Court please the objection tho
bill which attempted file 10 be that II Is an
attempt enon the President The bill pot filed and
reform TO suit the views OF the Court and present
Tie Chief Justce-Leave TO file the bill Is refused.
when another BIZ IL y Mn Ge Isl @ the
| plicatiOn can be made on Thursday
| The Chief Justice--On Thursday.
OF the United States Supreme Court reads as fol
issued out or this Court In any suit IN equity
= Of said process"
To-day the ordered subpenas TO Issue against the
defendants In the Georgia Bill OF Complaint prayed
by the petitioner The Court will adjourn in May and
the days required by the rule cannot between
and that time the return must necessarily bo az the
regular term OF the Court IN December next Further
proceeding in the according 10 tins Interpretation
Of the rule by legal gentlemen, WILL therefore, be post
pOned until that time.
SOUTH CAROLINA
! 1T TELkGnAPH
| CHARLESTON s. C., April l5-Gen. Siekless order