Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1867-04-24

the bar this Court would, in any case, inter
pose to arrest the execution of an uncOnstl
tutional act of Congress, it can hardly bt
doubted that the application with that Object
would have been heretofore addressed to 1T
Occasions have been frequent. The Constr
nationality Of the act for the annexation o.
Texas was vehemently denied. 1t made i'm
portant and permanent changes In the rela-
tive importance of states and sections, and
was by many supposed to pregnate with dis
astrous results to large interests in particu-
lar states but no one seems to have thought
of an application for an injunction against
the execution of the act by the President. and
yet it is difficult to perceive upon what prln-
ciple the application now before us can be al
lowed, and similar applications in that and
other cases could have been denied. The fact
that no application was ever before made IN
any case indicates the general Judgment OF the
profession that no such application should be
entertained. twill hardly be commended that
Congress can interpose in any case to restrain
the enactment of an unconstitutional law
and yet how can the right to judicial inter
position to prevent such an enactment, when
the purpose is evident and the execution of
that purpose certain, be distinguished III
principle from the right to such interpos-
ton against the execution of such law by
the President. The Congress of the Lcgis-
lative Department of the Government. The
President is the Executive Department
Neither can be restrained i'll its action by the
Judicial Department, though the act of both,
when performed, are in proper cases subject
to it's cognizance The improperly Of such
interference will be clearly seen upon consid-
Grafton of its probable consequences. Sup
pose the bill filed. and the in Injunction prayed
for be allowed. If the President refuse ODE
dience, it is needless to observe that the Court
is without power to enforce its process. If,
ON the other hand, the President complies
with the order of the Court, and refuses to
execute the act of Congress. is 1T not clear
that u collision may occur between the tx
ecutve and Legislative Department of the
Government? May not the House of Repre-
scntatives impeach the President for such
fusal And in that case could this Court
interpose in behalf of the President, thus
dangered by compliance with It's mandate,
and restrained by in junction the Senate the
United States from setting ar court of I'M
parchment? Would not the strange specta-
Gle be offered to the public wonder of an
attempt by the Court to arrest proceedings in
that Court? These questions answer them
selves. 1t is true that state may file an
original bill in this Court and it may be true,
in some eases, such a bill may be filed against
the United States but we are fully satisfied
enjoin the President i'll the performance Of his
official duties, and that such bill ought to
be received by 1t has been suggested that
the bill contains prayer that, If the relief
sought cannot be had against Andrew John
as President, it may he granted against
Andrew johnson as Il citizen of Tennessee
but 1t is plain that relief against the eXecu-
ton Of an act of Congress by Andrew John
son is reliefagainst its execution by the Prcs-
dent bill praying an injunction against
the execution of an act Of Congress 10y the in
cumbent Of the Presidential Office cannot be
received whether it describes him as Prcsi-
dent or simply as a citizen of state The
motion for leave to file the bill therefore
denied
The bill on behalf of the state of Georgia,
which did not include the President among
the defendants, was permitted to be filed, but
Attorney General Stanberry has made mo-
ton to dismiss it, which viii be argued this
week The bill will undoubtedly be dis
missed.