Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-04-16

siiiuti0naliiy Of the act for the annexation
of Texas was vehemently denied. II made
important permanent changes in the rela-
tive importance of States and sections, and
was by many supposed to be frequent
with disastrous results to large interest
in particular States, but scenes have
thought Of an application for an injunction
against the execution of an act by the
President, and yet it is difficult to perceive
on what principle the application now
before US can be allowed. Similar appli-
cations in that and other cases could have
been denied The fact that no such appli-
cation was ever before made, in any case,
indicates the general Judgment of the pro-
fession to be that no such application should
be entertained. 1t will hardly be contend
ed that Congress can, in any case, restrain
enactment ian unconstitutionallaw, and vet
how can the right to judicial interposition
to prevent such an enactment, when the
purpose is evident and the execution of
that purpose certain, be distinguished in
principle from the right to judicial in
deposition to prevent such an enactment.
Congress is the Legislative department of
the government, and the President is the
executive department. Neither can be re-
strained in its action by the judicial de-
partment, though both of the acts when
performed make the people subject to its
cognizance. The improperly of such in-
reference will be clearly seen on consider
alton of its propable consequences. Sup
pose the bill filed and the injunction prayed
for be allowed if the President refuse obe-
dience, it is needless to observe that the
court is without power to enforce the pro-
cess. And if, on the other hand, he complies
with the order of the court, and refuse TO
execute the act of Congress, is it not
clear that collision may occur between the
executive and legislative departments.
May not the House Of Representatives i'm
peach the President for thus refusing a
compliance with its mandate, and restrain,
by Injunction, the Senate of the United
States from sitting as court of impeach-
ment? Would not a strange spectacle
be presented to the public by an at
tempt by this court to arrest the pro-
ceedings in that court2 These questions
answer themselves. 1t is true State may
file an original bill in this court, and it
may be true in some cases such bill may be
filed against the United States but we are
fully satisfied that this court has no juris-
diction of bill to enjoin the President in
the performance of his official duties, and
that no such bill eughtto be received by us.
1t has been suggested that the bill contains
prayer that if relief is sought and cannot
be had against Andrew Johson as Presi-
dent, it may be granted against Andrew
johnson as citizen of Tennessee, but it is
plain that relief against the execution
Of an act of Congress by Andrew Johr-
son, is relief against the injunction
against the execution of an act of Congress
the incumbent Of the Presidential Office
cannot be received, whether it describes
him as the President or simply as citizen
of the State of Tennessee. The motion for
leave to file the bill is therefore denied.
The opinion of the court having been
delivered by the Chief Justice, he said the
court would not sit on next Friday,
it being good Friday, and Thursday would
be substituted as the motion. He also
added that, in the case of the State of
Georgia against certain officers, the Attor-
ney General makes no objection to filing a
bill, and the court will therefore grant
leave to file that bill.
Mr.. Sharkey-If the court please, the
objection to the bill proposed to be filed
seems to be that it is an attempt to enjoin
the President. The bill is not yet filed,
and can be made TO conform to the views
Of courts, and then sent in. .
Chief Justice-Leave to file the bill is re-
fused. When another bill is presented il
will be considered i.H
Mr.. Sharkey-Do / understand the
court 10 say application can be made on
Thursday. I.
Chief Justice-On Thursday. s.g.