Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1867-04-19
Tn, Mississippi Tsst Case.
Chief Justice CAase Gives the
Supresne Court Opiu6aom.
WNsIMNGrON. April l5.

ARLINGTON April 10.
In the 5.tprc,rn Court to-day Chief Justic'
CiElsc delivered the opinion Of the court Il
the case in The State OF Mississippi w. Al
dres< johnson. Prest cftlsc United States
anFE. O. Ord, for leave to file bill, a
follows:
A motion was IN stle some days since il
Behalf Of the State Of Mississippi for leav
to filc bill in the name Of that State, pray
ing this court perpetua.ly to cnjoin and re
strain Andrew johnson. President Of tn
United States. and T.. 0. G. Ord. Genera
commanding ia the District Of Mississippi
aud Arkansas, from executing or III any
manner carrying out certain Acts OF Con
grcss therein namel.
The Acts referred To are those of March
and 2},coniinonly known a. tue Rcc'Skttc
ton Acts
The Attorney General objected to tn
leave asked for. ,asal the grounds that u,
bill which makes the President defend
ant aus seeks anInjunction against hun Il
restraint the performance of his duties ~
President. should he allowed to be filed il
this court. This point has been fully ar
gueek :nid we will now dispose of It,
We shall limit our inquiry to the qnes-
ton presented by the objection. without eN
pressing any opinion on the broader iss,le'
discussed in the argument, whether In any
case the President of the United states
may be required by process ofthls court t.
perform Il purely ministerial act required }
law. or may be held amenable in any case
otherwise than by impeachment for crime
The single point Which requires consul
Grafton Is this :Canthe President be restrain
cd from carrying into effect an Act OF Con-
rress alleged to be unconstitutional!
1t is assumed by the counsel for the
State of Mississippi that the President i'll
the execution Of the reconstruction act Is
rcestired to perform mere mini >teriai act
In sIls assumption there Is, we THINK: !!
ponI,ountling OF the terms '.mlnlsterial
and "executive" which are by no means
equivalent in import. \ ministerial duty,
The performance of which may in proper
cases be required of the head ola depart
Incnt by judicial process. Is one N respect
10 yvlrc:i, nothing IS lelt to discretion. 1t is
:, simple definite duty, arising under con-
ditions admitted or proved to exist, or i'm
posed By law
The case of Marbassy vs.. Madison. Sec'y
Of the Treasury, Cranch l31, furnishes an
illustration. A citizc,, Ind been noniina-
ted and confirmed and appointed Justice Of
the peace for the District of COLUMBIA, aud
his commission had been made out, signed
and sealed Nothing rcnained TO be done
except the delivery and due delivery OF TINS
law on the Sec'y OF State.
1t was held that the performance OF this
duty might be enforced by mandamus isst-
cd from court having jurisdiction
So in the case of Kendall, Postmaster
General. vs.. Stockton Il Stokes. IL Peters
627. an Act Of Congress had directed the
Postmaster General to credit STOCKTON d
stokes with such SUNS as the Soiicitor OF
III. Treasury sh ,uld iind due them, and that
officer refused to credit THEM WIN certain
sums SO found due.
IL was held that cretlitng this money
was mere ministerial duty the preforn,-
ave. of which might I've enforced in each
of these cases. Nothing was Left to dlscre-
tion.-There was no room for the exercise
ofiudynent. The law required the per-
fJru,ancc of single specific act. and that
performance it MAS he'll. might be req'iif-
c,kbv ,baadalris. Very different Is the
duty of the President in the exercise OF ms
p,wcr to see that the laws are faithfully
executed. and among those was the acts
IA ned in this bill
By the first Of these acts he is required to
a4sirn General to command in several
military districts, and TO detail 4 sufficient
military force to enable such officers to
discharge their duties under the law. By
the supplementary act other duties are iui-
o.ed on the several commanding Generals
and their duties must necessarily be per-
formed under the supervision Of the Pres
i,lent 1t is in no just sense ministerial; II
j. purely executive and political. An at
tempt on the part of the judicial depart
nent of the government to enjoin the per-
f,rmance OF such duties by the President
mirl.t be Justly characterized in the lang
,a9c OF Chief Justice Marshall, as IAN alb
surd and excessive extravaganza"
Ills true that in the case before Us the
irferpositiun ofthc Court Is not sought to
ca,orcc action by tire Executive under Con-
stitutional legislation, but to restrain
such action under legislation alleged to be
unconstitutional. But we are unable to
perceive that this circumstance takes the
ease out of the general principle which for
bids judicial interference with the exercise
III, executive discretion. 1t wLs admitted
in the argument that the application now
made to IL, to be without precedent. and
this is ofmnch weight against II. Had II
been supposed at the bar that this Court
would ia any case interpose to arrest the
execution of an. unconstitutional law OF
Conrre IS. it can hardly be doubted that
application with that object would have
been frequent. The coustitutionality OF
Inc act for the annexation Of Texas was
vchemcntly denied. 1t made important
pe-manent changes IN the relative import
ance of States and sections, and was by
many supposed 10 be pregnant with diSas-
trous resuhs to large interests in particular
- teS. btW 10 ono Scctus 10 haNC NtoNshe
of All Injunction against the execution oi
the act BY the President and yet Is diflfcul'
10 perceive Oh what principle the apple.
alton now before us can be allowed and
similar application in that and other case
could never been lie i al.
The fact that no such application was
ever before made in any case. indicate the
general judgement Of the profession. thai
n, such application should be entertained
1t will hardly be contended that Congress
can imtcrpOse in any case. To restrain th'
enactment Of an unconstitutional law; anu
vet. how can the right to Judicial interpos
itiou IN prevent such an enactment where
the nurnOs. IL evident. and the exect ton L
that purpose certain. I've distinguished il
principle from tie right to such law b!
the President. Congress is the Legislative
department of the Government. and TIL
President il the executive department
Neither can he restrained in its action. b.
the iu,liaial department; though the act q
both. when performed are. in roper cases
subject to its cognizance. The lmproprie
" cf such interference will be clearly see
upon the consideration Of its probable con
sequences.
Suppose the Hill is filed and the iniunct
ion proved for b. allowed. and the Pres
ident should refuse odidcnce- it is need
1css to observe that this Court Is wlthou
power to emtsxce its process. II. on tn
.,:llep hsnd the President complied wit
4