The south-western. [volume] (Shreveport, La.) 1852-1870, 1867-05-15
rs the. Supreme Court Final Arbiter.

From the New CEieaus Cresceut.1
Ihe New ork World publishes a review, by the
eminent constitutional lawyer George Tieknor Curtis
of Chief Justice lbae's decision declining to make
The President pasg in the Mississippi injunction case
In the opinion of Eas Chief Justice an order from the
Supreme Court III restrain the President from enforc
ing e military construction acts would be contrary
10 the principle alich forbids judicial interference
with the exercise at executive discretion Mr.. Cur
It's denies the existence of such principle. He con
gn5g That while Professionally each Of the three co0r-
o!h%ts et'st4"aspts he legislative executive and u.
alcat-~n5ay pursue IsoHn Interpretation Of the Con
saon, one OF the three, the judicial is by constitu-
to0al creaJQr final arbiter whose Interpretation must
pgGuomua2e Oyer That of either Of the others 1t is
no part OF the tu@oa of this arbiter in the opinion
OF Ar Curtis, to recognise define the province of
executive Discretion u respect to laws Of which the
cousrtutonatyi Is In question; but it simply called
III such cases, 20 decide whether the laws shall operate
or shaa fall To tbE ground as null and void But,
while aslsuag on This general position be concludes
with tue following T0tabe observation g It may be
ls5 there arc boundaries capable of being clearly de-
fined which Will show that the judicial department can
NOT arrest the execution of a law of Congress how
evef unconstitutional because of the nature of the
ac.s which th2t law authorses to be DONE and the DO
zItjoA Of the agents when it employs In other
words it is not Improbable that the Supreme Court
may haa seI in point of fact, utterly without power
10 prevent, a. the suit of either Mississippi or Georgia.
the execution Of lie military reconstruction acts even
though sAggd be convinced Of their unconstitution
atT Il seems 10 he very clear that the principle OF
judicial lunHtcrtereuce with executive discretion as
Lid down BIZ Chief Justice Chase involves the impos-
sGlty o! Judicial arrest of the execution of those
nets b. the military gents of the President. OH fl-
eE per AjzrH. 5Ge5t pen Sc The president acts in the
exercise OF executive discretion in the action of Gen
erals Sheridan, Ore, Pope and others, appointed by
aim TO administer ile detailed enforcement of certain
ia7s. Consequently the Supreme Court would inter
teFg with the exercise of executive discretion by at
r7 1,,rr
fully as mach as il would by attempting to impose re-
stTain upon The President To break the back of ex-
ccus!ye p5#eT By aalysing its agents, the military
lgmDautes Of the several districts would be the same
~ effect MS bC1G4DE is neck cutting off its head
Though sha Argument OF Mr.. Curtis does not ex-
pTcssly develop itplanly, think involves this
conclusions aHi hence, the review OF Chief Justice
Glasses decision y mat able and erude lawyer tends
lessen rather than nC. ease the probabilities of
eventual judicial remedy against the military
fruetioN acts 4gainst anything incident to their ex
TcuttOn by agents TO the federal executive authority.
1t is q coincidence worth noting in this connection,
that Chief Justice Chase substantially repeats the doc
trile OF Mr. Calhoun that the Supreme Court was not
Intended be Hag arbter to define the constitutional
powers OF tho other departments of the Government.
The opposite assumption, Mr. Calhoun contended,
would be- if sustained, fatal to State rights would de-
troy the independence and equilibrium of the several
departments. and make the Judiciary sovereign and
Iespo&c.
PresUmiug thai lie position Of Chief Justice Chase
viii he consistently adhered to by the Supreme Court
Il would appear that the legislative and the executive
departments 10 he left to their counses in re-
gard to questions ri constitutional power ard obiga
lion. The abstinence of the court from interference
h the exercise q Executive discretion in respect to
NE military reconstruction acts, is avirtua admission
,ha the President moy if he choose reduce those acts
70 practical nudity 10y declining to put them in force
For if there is tribunal competent arrest their
execution, there b none, the principle
Judicial n0a-tutsFEerence, competent to compel
gber execution, There is check, in the theory
Of the Supreme Court, expressed by Chief Justice
Chase Ia tbs almost latitude of executive discretion
alpoeF 70 hnytnE Or enforcing laws except the pos
sIhiFtg OF l1peaeument by the House aud removal BY
he Senate.