The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1867-04-17


fever from their angry countenances. The
prophets predict war; but, in spite of every
portent, we discern the consolation that the
world is pleased to exhibit itself in Paris.
War might have happened even now if indus
trial civilization did not plant itself in the
background and pull at the skirts of princes
and armies. The great Exhibition, at least,
means peace.
The South aud the Recon struotIOn Law
Can the United States be SuedE
From the Times
Even in the very narrow limitations to which
it has necessarily been subjected, the discus
sion before the Supreme Court on the applica-
tion for an injunction against the President,
to restrain him from enforcing the Reconstruc-
tion bill, involved questions of the utmost
importance and interest. The application was
made in behalf of the State of Mississippi for
leave to file bill for this purpose against the
President and General Ord. The Attorney
General opposed the motion on the ground
that the Court ought not to entertain such
proceeding against the President. Judge
Sharkey, who presented the application, had
made up his mind so clearly on this question,
that when he heard the point made he at once
informed the Attorney-General that he did
not think the objection amounted to any
thing at all; for we expect, said he, "to show
that the President of the United States is just
as amenable to the process of this Court as
any other man in the United States" We
suspect that before the Attorney General had
finished his argument, some ideas had pene-
trated Sharkey's mind on this point which
had not entered it before.
The gist of the Attorney-General's argument
was, that if the Supreme Court could enter
tain such proceeding against the President,
. - 4hn 10 aTnfp ne
by imprisoning him if he did not obey it,
which would amount to deposing him;
Whereas impeachment is the only mode pro-
vided by the Constitution for the removal of
the Executive; and, moreover, that the pro-
ceeding was really one against the United
States, which could not be sued except by its
own consent.
Mr.. J. Walker, in answer; undertook to
show both that the United States could be sued
by a State before the Supreme Court, and that
this suit against the President was not a suit
against the United States. If the Attorney
General had presented a rejoinder, we should,
doubtless, have had both of these positions
most thoroughly OverthroWn. For to us the
answer is obvious, especially to the first. Mr..
Walkers argument appears to amount to
this:-"By the Constitution the judicial power
of the United States is declared to extend to
controversies to which the United States shall
be a party, besides other cases. Of these
cases the Supreme Court is declared to have
/ original jurisdiction in cases lin which State
shall be a party Therefore the United States
may be- by virtue of this clause of the Consti-
tuition, party to a suit-defendant or plaintiff
either-or, in other words, the United States
may be sued. 1t granted its consent that it
should be sued when it adopted that clause of
the Constitutions and when State is a party,
the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to
entertain the suit"
The difficulty, as ii seems to us with this
argument is that 1t proves too much. If that
clause of the Constitution is to be taken
as giving the consent of the Government ia
be sued, it must be taken to be a general
consent, without any limitation whatever.
1t cannot be held to have been giving consent
Of the Government to be sued in any suit
which should be commenced in favor of one
man rather than another, or of a corporation
or State rather Fhan of an individual, fol
the language isg simply Controversies tC
which the United States shall be party
If this clause gives authority for the State
OF mississippi to bring the United States
before the Federal Courts, it gives authority
TO any citizen to do the same thing in any con
r troversy which he has with the Government.
= But if anything is we'll settled in the law, i
= Is that the Government cannot be sued before
a the Federal Courts, unless it has given its con
1 sent TO suit the otherwise than by the adoption
r ol TINS clause OF the Constitution. The ques
i uon mas been repeatedly before the Courts
}, ana we venture to say that this is the frs
n time that any one has thought of drawing an,
n argument for the opposite claim from tha
Y clause OF the Constitution. We do not appre
hend that the argument which has been nov
drawn wall be felt to have had any force.
1t IS PLAIN mat that clause only confines t.
the Federal Courts jurisdiction over contro
"a versies to which the United States shall be
" party, without having any reference At ali Z
70 how they shall become party. If thew ara I
IN bring suit, it must be brought in the Fsders
id Courts; or if they consent to be sued II sbaI
ve be in the Federal Courts but certainly tber
is not to be found in those words any oonsen,
no given in advance, that they may be sue
he whenever any one else thinks proper. Hithert