The New York herald., 1868-02-11
The Georgia and Mississippi Injunction Cases
Dismissed for Want Of Jurisdiction.
THE IMPEACHMENT SCHEME.
The Evidence Taken by the judiciary
Committee Referred to the Re-
construction Committee.
Several Financial Bills introduced
in tho House.


an'portaus Opinion OF tho United States ssn-
rreme Court on the Georgia and NIisslssIppi
Anjuscsion Cases-The Bills Dismtssed for
Want Of JNrisdictiew-P0litical Gsaestions
Not Decided by the egai
Insevserencc With tlse Congregational Recon-
str~nction Laws.
WASHINGTON, Feb. TO- 1868.
In the Srprame Court Of tho United States to day AS
sociate Jsatiee Nelson announced hs opinion in the
OF the state OF Georgia against Hen. Edwin H.
Stanton. Secretary o. War, General Grant and Major
iSeYa. Tho last named-a the time the bill was
fed commanding the Third Military District
posed ofNSeorgia FLORIDA and Alabama designated by
the act of Congress approved March 2. 1857, entitled
.An provide for the efcieot government Of
the rosel S,ases,' and the supplemental thereto
passed tbs 23d OF the month.
The bin llea by the State OF Georgia prayed for
Junction for the purpose OF restraining the defendants
carrying ino effect the several provisions these
acts and set terth the existence OF Georgia OF the
States Of the Canon and further that surrender
Of The Confederate in 1865 at the close OF the civil
war; that State in the possession and enjoyment Of
all the rights belonging State the Union under
the constitution and laws OF the United States, and
such entitled to representation in both houses OF
Congress.
yhe bn further set forth that the intention and de-
face and BY their ermsvz the overthrow of the
ing State governments and erection their place Of
another not authorized by the consuton-and that in
furtberance OF ns intent the Secretary OF War; General
Grant and Major General Pope, acting under
orders from the President were about setting
IN motion portion Of those statutes TO
take military possession and subver the government OF
Georfa thereby subiec,ng the people thereof mill
rule that the state wholly inadequate to rcsst
sisted that protection ought be Afforded by decree
OF ,ne Supreme Court in the premises The bill next
prayed
FfrstThat the defendants might be restrained from
issuing any order doing any act thing within the
state OF Georgia injurious to said State, which might
be required Of them by the act OF Congress
Second-ro the defendants to delay the regstrs
ton in Georgia prescribed in the last named act
7hird-ro restrain them from administering or caus-
ing be administered affirmation provided
FOR in that act
Fouytl-To prevent election the returns in any
such election roE being received according the
question; and
Fdtt-Frem holding causing TO be held any
Sen,ion prescribed therein.
Justice Nelson having forth these prem
ies, but al greater length than is above given said in
ssbsiance tina. motion had been made by counsel for
defendants TO dismiss the for OF jurisdiction
and without precedent II claimed that the
bad jurisdiction in the case, either OF the
icct matter In the bill tho parties represented
The Grst ground supported by argument it
political and not Judicial question, and there-
fore not subject OF oognizance by tbis court
The distinction between judicial and political questions
resulted from the organization of the government. OK
ecuve legislative and Judicial, and from the Imitation
Of The powers Of each under the constitu.
ton The judicial power vested the
judicsa department AID tho political power in
the other departments The distinction
be when judicial and political power generally
admitted that the court deemed IL necessary TO do
nothing than 10 refer TO OF the authorities
she SUBJECT they all direction among them
the Of Rhode Island against the state OF Msssachu
setts. i had been supposed that this afforded
authority for hearing aud deciding questions COZ
necied with bill in equity; but a close exami nation
would be ionnd that shis mistake: there a
question OF boundary between these two States and
OF political character. In the case OF Florida
against Georgia the United States allowed 20
vene being the propretors OF large portion OF lands
situated within tho disputed boundary, ceded TO the
United states by spain. the state OF Florida also being
interested as proprietor. The case bearing
directly on this one Is that OF ihe Cherokee nation
against the state OF Georgia bill was filed
this case and an INJUNCTION prayed for TO
ssainst the Cherokee nation The latter claimed the
riShi TO appear in foreign nation. The acts
the Legislature carried execution would have
destroyed the tribal condition o the Cherokees and
subjected them to the authority Of tho state II was
Aherefore, decided that tue Chsrokees were not a
Ss..en in the referred TO in the consiu.
isS Of the Cpaed States chlef Justice Msrshai said
nDs bill untenabls another ground--nsmey. II
Iissiyed political question. Associate Justice Nelson
tho ssoye viess, and showed that political power did
mot btng 70 be judiciary and tha, ihe could have
rgs, pronounce merely abstract opinion of the
Constitution or Of Slate 'av. Il might, however decide
on al sta uies nrseriy falling judicial authority
by the ascont se,t0p Of TIE third article os the
sonsututa1 % The United states G Is provided
Tie iudias power asN extend 10 all cases IN law and
s4uty ariaslg tnuer The constitution, the laws he
United stat aud Jeat made o. which shall lie made
under thsr a.1hority 40 Al clses affecting gsd0Fs
otLsr public ministers nd consus. al Of ad-
JnIraiy and nsiiime jurisdiction, 20 controversies 70
rhlch the Eni.sd atui4s shall 10 4 park 10 cnntrn.
Yer2cs betWs nwo Or more states between State snd
cnzei oi snotAet NtasH, between citizens Of different
Stacs between ou1sns 81 the state claim lands
under xrau's, o. HstsRi stnes aud between sisio
tne cxsns nerosf an ioresn states citizens Or slb.
iects.
The 81 hsd by tlAs state Of Georgia praysi for an In
junction x restrain tue defendants rom executing
ps.ts the acts 81 Congress- being approhonsve
that inigIy - tho state would therohy result but
ao5ofdng 4 iaw ssd precedent, IN order q entltie
parties 70 teicl case must be properly
pressn:ca or exercise or judicial power aud the
case must reiN % the ghts IL pei and property
aud aot 70 folacl questions merely. wheb DO moi
5ecaS 10 the Judiciary ether q law )r equity. IN view
of tho syncpss wLoh unsor lhe constitution and
statutes .be csnrt hal eatesVorci 70 explain, the
question oSs whether the court could take coRDaance
III tbp quos,ou nsw be ii Tbs caur was called on
q restrain th, deiennsnis who represented the Execu.
tNr department, from putting into execution certain
acs of Congress ah.l 10 Was claimed would overthrow
the rgrtDg sate gossrnnEnt o. Georgia and establish
dHeFen one il It's goad-tu other "ords, destroy ehe
copCrae eAsteucs of tbr eats such is the substance
q the h y called frr ne jOdeme OF The court on
political question sad lot fnyolvlng pertons aud
property. No question of PEI son " property, or
ftreate1ed danger = tuen, 0as presscted " the bin
40 form Jasifyng judicial action BY tho court |