The New York herald., 1871-11-25
He COUR T s.
Assigusos in Bankruptcy All gsd Violation Of
the Internal Revenue Law-Passing Coun-
tsrieit Money A Label suit
Thearicals in Court
UNITED STATES sUpREH: COURT.

The state Of Kentucky Suing tIse Secretary
Oi the Treasury for tac War Claims OF
1S61--Juris6icfioB Of tine Court Nor AdsnIf-
ted and Aspiration for Man6am mus Refused.
WASHINGTON, ID. c., Nov. "a. 1871.
The following case was before the United States
Supreme Court to-day
The Conamon,cea N or Kentucky, er rel. Cor.
ern0r Leslie. Us. Bout,ceii, secretary or the Treas
uyH-Petition for mandamus the petitioner seeks
to compel the Secretary OF the Treasury to deliver
warrant uron the Treasury for the amount alleged
10 be due from the United States to Kentucky
for war claims, under the act or July
q, 1861, tnat officer having by his decision
or August =. 1871, determined that the troops Tor
whom me reimbursement - asked were never
mustered inso the service OF the United States, nor
called OUT at the request OF or under tue autDorlty
oil the resident or Secre ary Of War, and tnat con-
seauentH ,ne rule prescribed by secretary Chase,
bar TO me claim. Mr. boutwell, aiso look the view
that Congress has since Inc enactment OF 1861,
twice given legislative construction TO tnat act
cOls.sten. with the RUE tnen established by
Secretary Chase, ana leaving no ground on whicn
the ciaim eau De paid without the specific authority
Ol Congress He also maintains that It was ms
right and duty 10 revise the declson. On bcnali or
tie St0e Is asser,ed that Tie regal right 10 be re-
lmbursed Is established by The decision OF the
PRESIDENT, ,hrougn the War department, sanctioned
and sEstainci II II needed any other aiiirnance,
ny the accounting officers oI the governments.
80 talsed by t1e state, and Tor which tue expenses
asked 10 he reimbursed were incurred, had been
employed ~ AIDING 10 suppress the rebellion agalns
the tniied Stateg the facts were ali IN the mll.
ltary hIsu DRY Of the government, which were Lecu.
Harry wl'nIn the cugnizance and knowledge OF the
Mar Department. 10 ascertain and present these
factS ana To aetermlne upon them In refer nee
to Lnis claim Meio the high executive duties
belonging 70 the President Chlei Executive Oh the
nation ana the COMMANDMENTS CHIEF Of the military
forces. In me performance OF onese duiies the
secretary or War and the DEF artment under ms
charge are employed by the Pre- sldent and the law
fuI acts OIL thls oMcer ana TINS department OF the
se arc ee so'S mbnrt,es an %
wOuld be strange anomaly II tie Presldent should
aw norize, or lne Constitution and laws permit one
executive department 10 revise and reverse tine
decsiuns OF another; still stranger II that revising
ana reversing department. should be In military
questions the lreasury-one whose organization,
n,acalnery and iaciliLes ale totally untitled 10 and
without adaptation Tor sucn purpose. proper
examination and determination these que
perienCe wnlcn the secretary OF the treasury could
hardly be presumed TO have on THIS military decs-
ion. The accounting o.fiCers settled the account,
and the secretary vi the Treasury mas no discretion
in ne matJer aud 1t Is his duty 10 sign the warrant
ample a. preparation maze by Congress To pay The
Claims, o. wAch tie secretary ol the treasury ~ fhe
mere custodian and trustee for The State.
IL is commended on these iact5 that man.
danius Is the only adeq ate and efieciual
ana therefore the only appropriate renledyt0 en-
iorCe TINS rieht Yne rule Ia that where the law
imposes siecihc uuty either IN positive terms or
by reasonable construction, and these Is no other
specinc remedy, mandamus Will De awarded
Tn the question oil jurisdiction. II IS submitted
that State Icing parry IN TACT ana interest this
Court has iull and com, !ce jurisdiction TO enforce
by the writ asked the legal light OF tue State by
compelling the performance OF the legal
duly Ui the secretary oil the Treasury. On
the merits OF the case the government
malnlaln me same ground taken nv the secretary
the 1Ica uiy ms decision, ana the aciS cpart-
menL rules anu statutes are examined at Rreat
leugth to demonstrate lts correctness. Concerning
the question Jurlsctlon II Is coniende that this
Court has not o.iglua jurisdiction III Oil cases III
winch State Is party, but on, In controversies
between StatC and citizens oil another State" The
CoEd seCiun OF The third artcle OIL the constltu
tlu1 pfu,Iies tIat The Judicial power ol the
Jniied states snail extend 70 controversies
between stale and cltizens OF another State"
The succeeding clause OF that section provides
tnaL III ali Gases aiectI AmbassaiOrs oIner pup-
lc Ministers and Consuls and shose III winch
state snail bc party, Tie Supreme Court shall nave
original JuIIsdCiion. sin All the other cases before
men,oned the Supreme Court shall have appellate
JutIs ctonn This ui Ter clause clause does NOT con-
Ter jurisdiction II only distributes tnat granted IN
the preceulDg clause Of the section, ana The thr
teentn section 0i me Judlcars act follows this dis
trDutun, and The present. petition does not, there
lore present case for the original jurisdiction OF
TINS Court ms Is not case against Mr. boutwell,
individual liaturai person, Tor any acC that
he has done or has not done as george 81 boutwell,,
but altogether in 0icIa capacity rs secretary or
The ireasury, and tnls Court eau have no original
jurisdiction OF such q case.
Joseph tasey and George II. Mckee for the State;
A. G. Akernan, Attorney General; u. II. brlsiow,
Sollcltu~ General, and g. w. hll, Assistant Attorney
General, Tor the government.