Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1868-03-14

B- Robert J. Walker, of whose Demo
cracy there can be no possible doubt, in hi:
great argument in the Mississippi case, held
the following language in regard to the
Presidents duty to execute all the laws OF
Congress, without reference to their con.
sttutionality:
sand here let ME say word in vindica-
tlon of the President, who has been greatly
censured, especially by a large portion of
the Secession press of the South, for carry
ing into execution an act which he had
vetoed upon the ground that it was uncon-
stitutionai. When a DILL is presented to
the President, he is bound to inquire into
its constitutionality before he gives his ap-
proval. He is then cooperating with the
legislative department of the government.
If he declines to sign it AID it is passed by
two-thirds majority of Congress, it is as
much an act of Congress as ii it had received
the sanction of the President; and it neces-
sarily follows that under the obligation i'm.
posed upon him by the Constitution to see
that the laws are faithfully executed, he is
as much bound to execute that act as one
which met his fullest approval, Why g
Because tho President possesses no judicial
power; nor does Congress. If Congress
were to attempt to convert Itself into a
judicial body, and the two Houses should
60 into Committee of the Whole to inquire
into the constitutionality of particular
act, their resolution on that subject would
be mere nuIlity, because they possess legis'
latiye power, and not executive or judicial
power. SO the President had no right to
judge of the constitutionality of an act OF
Congress after it had become law, that be-
ing judicial question. If this were not so,
1t would be the right, and therefore the
duty, OF every successive President, so soon
as be vas ingugurated, to take up the hun
dreds OF volumes containing all the acts OF
Congress, and inquire judicialIy which OF
them were constitutional, and which not,
and carry into execution those which he
believed to be constitutional. | say the
President would be usurping the Judicial
function and overtGrowing the distinction
created by the Constitution between the co.
ordinate departments of the Government il
ne were to attempt to exercise such power
AS that. He mas no DIsCREIIoS except to
execute the act; and that important fact
goes to tho very g!st of the matter. When
an application is made for mandamus to
compel the performance OF an act, or an
injunction TO restrain the execution of an
illegal act It depends upon whether the
executive officers have discretion in either
case to Judge of the law, and right 10
execute It or not at their pleasure. Ii they
nave no discretion, and the law positively
commands the execution of a particular act,
the remedy is by mandamus to act afiirma.
lively IT the law furbids peremptorily the
execution Of an act, then, where it can be
made a judicial question, the appeal is to
the judicial tribunals, and especially where
.ne question is a constitutional one. In
'uls case the President has no discretion
vssep' TO execute tho law the subordinate
pmeefs who are obeying his commands
naNe uo discretion, except TO carry bis or.
3efs into atee, aad there is no iisere,,on
- eueh ease between an executive ami =
ci'niateslal dgty."