The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1868-02-14

PORTLAND.
Friday Morning, February IA. 1868.
The Georgia Injunction Case.

Oi-SAnAON Vt SUPREME COURT.
We have previously referred 20 the decision
rendered by Associate Justice Nelson of the
Supreme Court, dsmissing from the docket
the case OF the State of Georgia against Ed
win NJ. Stanton, Secretary Of War, General
Grant and Gen. Pope. The acdon came
before the Court on bill PRAYING for an in
junction restraining the defendants from exc
cutting the reconstruction acts. II was ateu-
ed last April, and dismissed for want of iH-
risdiction, but the opinion of the Court, which
we subioin, has just been drawn mp by JUS
tice Nelson, with whom Chief Justice Chase
agrees as to his conclusions but not as to his
reasoning:
Alter reciting the allegations in the bill As
soclate Justice Nelson said in substance that
the motion had been made by counsel Tor de-
tendants to dismiss the case for want of in
rlsdiction, and was one without precedent. -
II was claimed that the Court had no iuris-
diction in the case, either of the subject mat
tsl 1er N the Dill or over the parties represented
Inc nrst ground was supported by the argu-
ment that it was a political and not judicial
question, and therefore it was not subject to
cognlZance oy this Court The distinction be-
tween Judicial ard political que tens results.
from the organization OF government. .executive
iesi ative and judicial, and from the limitation
OF the power OF each under the Constitution.
The judicial power was vested in The judicial
department and the political power in the
other lwo departments. The distinction no.
tween the judicial and political power was So
generally accepted, that the Court deemed l.
necessary to do nothing more than cite some
OF the authorities en- the subject. They were
all ~ one direction, among them the case
OF Rhode Island against Massachusetts,
1t had been supposed that this case afforded
authority for hearing and deciding as on
questions connected with bill in equity, but
on close examination it would be found
that this was mistake. There was ones
tlon OF boundary between, these two States.
and not one OF political character. Associate
Justice Nelson referred to several other high
authorities in support ofthe above views. and
showed that political power did not belong
to the Judiciary, and that the Court conld
nave no right to pronounce merely an alb
stract opinion OF the Constitution or of State
laws. 1t might, however, decide on all
statutes property falling under Judi
clai authority. BY the second section, third
artlcle, CONSTITUTION of the United States, IT.
is provided that the judicial power shall ex-
| tend to all cases orlaw in equity Arising un-
the Constitution; to the laws Of the United
states and treaties made, or which shall be
made under their authority; to all cases af-
iect'ng ambassadors and other public min
isters and consuls; to all cases of admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction: to controversies
to which the United States shall be a party:
TO controversies between two or more States:
between State and citizen of another state
between citizens of different States |:
between citizens ofthe same State claiming
| lands under grants of different States, and
between State, or the citizens thereof
and foreign states, citizens or subjects
The Dill Tiled by The State of Georgia prayed
fcr an Injunction to restrain defendants from
executing certain parts of acts OF Congress,
being apprehenSive that injury to the State
would thereby result; but according to law
ana precedent, In order to entitle parties to
relief, a case must be properly presented for
the exercise OF judicial power, and the case
must refer to the rights OF persons and prop
| erty, and not to political questions merely.
which DO not belong to the judiciary, either
in Law or equity.
In view OF the principles which under the
constitution and statutes the Court had en-
deavored to explain, the question was
whether the Court could take cognizance of
OF the question now before it? The Court
was called on to restrain defendants who rep
resented the executive department, from put
ting into execution certain acts OF Congress
"~S S.@AAiSo WOulu OScIluEON buC
existing State Government of Georgia and es-
tabiish different one in its stead in other
words destroy the corporate existence of the
State. Such is the substance of the bill. 1t
called for the judgment OF the court on polit-
| lcal questions, and not on one involving per-
sons and property. No question of person
| or property, or threatened danger to them.
was presented in the bill In a form justi-
fving judicial action by the Court
1t was true the bill set forth political rights as
IN danger, and among other things that Geor-
sia owned certain property-the State capitol
the executive mansion, and other real and
personal property-and that by putting those
acts OF Congress into execution the State
would be deprived Of the possession of such
property. But it was apparent that this ref
ernce was only incidental and not a specific
| matter of remedy. The relief asked would
| call for bin different from the one now be-
fore the Court. Having for reasons stated ar
| rived at this conclusion, it was unimportant
to examine the question of jurisdiction in
| connection with defendants.
The Court dismissed the bill for want of
| jurisdiction OF the case OF the State OF Miss
| issippi against Secretary Stanton, Gen. Grant
and Maj. Gen. Ord, involving similar ques-
| tiOns.