The Vermont transcript. [volume] (St. Albans, Vt.) 1864-1870, 1868-02-14
The Georgia injunction Case.
IMPORTANT DECISION OF THE
U. S. SUPREME COURT.
Definition Of its PoUeIS.


Definition Of its PoWeJS.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 10. In Supreme
Court of the United States to-day AssOci-
ate Justice Nelson announced the case
of the State of Georgia against Hon. Ed
win Nj. Stanton, Secretary of War, Cen
eral Grant and Major General Pope
The last named at the time the bill was
filed was commanding the Third Mill
tary district, composed OF Georgia,
Florida and Alabama:
After reciting the allegations in the
bill Associate Justice Nelson said i'm sub
stance that the motion had been made
by counsel for defendants to dismiss the
case for want of Jurisdiction, and was
one without precedent. II was claimed
that the Court had no Jurisdiction in the
case either, of the subject matter in the
bill or over parties represented. The
first ground was supported by the argu-
ment that it was Il political and not Jul
dicial question, and therefore ii was not
a subject of cOgnizance by this Court
The distinction between judicial and pO-
litical questions results from the organi-
zation of Government executive legisla-
tive and Judicial and from the Limitation
of the power of each under the Consti-
tuition. The Judicial power was vested
IN the Judicial department and the pO-
Htical power in the other two depart
ments. The distinction between the
judicial and political power was 50 gen
orally adopted, that the Court deemed
ii necessary to 10 nothing more than to
refer TO some Of the authorities on the
subject. They were all in one direction
among them the case Of Rhode Island
against Massachusetts. II had been
supposed that this case afforded authori-
~ for hearing and deciding as-On queS-
tons connected with a bill iii equity,
but on close examination it would be
found that this was a mistake. There
was q question OF boundary between
these two States, and not one Of political
character nthc case OF Florida against
Georgia, the United States were allowed
TO intervene, being proprietOrs Of 1t large
portion OF lands situated within the dis
puted boundary, and coded to the Uni
ted states by Spain-the State of FIOri-
da also being interested as proprietor
The case bearing most directly on this
one, j. that OF the Cherokee Nation
against the State of Georgia. \ bill was
filed in this case, and an Injunction pray
ed for 10 prevent the execution OF GER
tain acts of Georgia against the Cherokee
Nation. The latter claimed the right to
appear in court as a foreign nation
The acts OF the legislature, if carried in
TO execution, would have DESTROYED the
tribal condition of the Cherokees, and
subjected them to the authority of the
State. II was therefore decided that
the CherOkees were not foreign nation
in the sense referred to III the COnstitu-
n | &f.f tel In
Marshall said the bill was untenable on
another ground namely: 1t involved a
political question. Associate Justice
Nelson referred to several other high au-
thoritles in support of the above views,
ana showed that political power did not
belong to the judiciary, and that the
Court could have no right 10 pronounce
merely an abstract opinion OF the Con-
stitutiOn or of State laws. 1t might
however, decide on all statutes concern
ing property falling under Judicial au-
thority. BY the second section. third
article, Constitution ofthe United States,
1t provided that the judicial power shall
extend to all cases in law and equity ar
ising under this Constitution to the
laws of the United States and treaties
made, or which shall be made under
their authority; to all cases affecting ann
cOnsuls 10 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 q state and citi- |
zen OF another State; between citizens |
OF different States; between citizens Of |
the same state claiming lands under /
grants of different States, and between "A |
state, and the citizens thereof. and
foreign States, citizens or subjects. The
bill filed by the State of Georgia PRAYED /
for an injunction 10 restrain defendants
from executing certain parts Of acts of
Congress, being apprehensive that inju-
~ To the state would thereby result: !
but according TO law and precedent, in
order 10 entitle parties to relief, case
must be properly presented for the exer-
else Of Judicial power, and the case must
refer 10 the rights of persons and proper
ty, and not to political questions merely,
which do not belong to the judiciary,
either in law or equity. In view of the
which under the Constitution
and statutes the Court had endeavored
to explain, the question was whether
the Court could take cOgniZance OF the
question now before il a.? The Court was
allied on to restrain defendants who re-
presented the executive department.
rom putting into execution certain acts
IF Congress which it was claimed would
overthrow the existing state Govern
nents OF Georgia and establish a differ
mt one iii its stead: in other words des-
roy the corporate existence of the State
such Is the substance of the bill 1t /
allied for the judgment Of the court on
political questions, and not on one in
-olving persons and property. No ques-
ION OF person or property, or threatened |
LANCER to them, was presented in the
ill in a form justifying judicial action
~ the Court. 1t was true the bill set
orth political rights as in danger, and
mOng other things Georgia owned GER
ain property-the State Capitol, the ex-
cutive mansion, and other real and :
PERSONAL property-and that by putting {
hose acts of Congress into execution the ]
State would be deprived of the possession
# such property. But it was apparent ]
hat this reference was only incidental :
nd not specific matter of remedy I
The relief asked would call for a bill diff |
erent from the one now before the Court {
having for reasons stated arrived at this
it was unimpOrtant to exam !
ne the question of jurisdiction in con- :
lection with defendants. The Court !
ismissed the bill for want of jurisdic- {
ion of the case of the State of Mississip- /;
i against Secretary Stanton, Gen. Grant :
nd Maj. Gen. Ord, involving similar I
uestions.
Chief Justice Chase said he did not
Oncur in all the reasons, but assented 1
D the conclusion, believing the Court !
ad no jurisdiction in the case.