Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1871-08-04
THE INJUNCTION CASE.
THE ARGUMENTS CONTINUED.
Messrs. Coombs and Durant for Pc
titiOuers.
NIessrs. Cushing and Wilson for Re.
---e-s spondents.

e
Yesterday, after our report closed, Mr.. Will
son concluded his remarks, saying that the Sec
Rotary, the Governor and Board of Public
Works are appointed BY the President, by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate. Are
Columbia or ofscers Of the United States ? And
If officers of the United States, is this court to
hold them responsible? This question has for
OF the United States in the case of Lockwood vs.
washington, and in which IL Is declared pre-
ciSely who are and who are not Officers Oh the
United States Is, then, the organic act in the
nature Of a political constitution, and not mere
charter of private or public corporation? III
the Supreme Court declares that person who
is appointed by the President, by and with the
duties are fixed by Congressional enactment, Is
an officer of the United States, the conclusion
inevitably follows that equity has no jurisdic-
ton to grant the compliments the relief they
pray for. No one viii deny that eourtOf equity
has no jurisdiction to enjoin the action &C pO-
litieal sovereignty. No one has ever gone fur
Their than to assert that the power of a court of
equity over an officer of the United States ex-
tends further than TO enjoin or COM
mand the commission Of a merely min
isterial act; and one will contend that
the negotiation of $4,000 is ministerial act
II seems plain, therefore, that COngess having
conferred on the Legislative Assembly legisla-
tive powers, and Congress having ere ated certain
Offices and made provision for the appointment
of certain officers to carry out the laws enacted
by the Legislative Assembly, that this court has
of the United States in this District appointed
in pursuance of the organic act that 1t has over
any executive officer, Secretary of the Interior,
or Or Secretary OF the treasury, the same; no
law that the courts Of the United States have no
jurisdiction 10 enjoin the officers of the United
States from performing any act which involves
the exercise Of Judgment and discretion, so by
the same reasoning the conclusion Is inevitable
that the courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin
these defendants-this GoveInor-from nego-
fsnfSv Oh hi
from carrying out the provisions OF an act which
he has sworn to see faithfully executed.
At the close of Mr.. Wilson's argument,
- Mr.. CoOMBs RESUMED
his argument, urging that the defence seemed to
consist Of two parts, one contending that the
complainants had no remedy in equity, and the
other THAI At had none either at law or equity.
He turned attention then to the question whether
Iowa fde holders could enforce the payment of
these 81 ,00oD00 bonds III they were Illegally is
sued? Nh. Cook had said the bonds proposed
the issue of registered and coupon bonds. who
ever heard OF such bonds not being negotiable?
He examined the cases quoted by Mr.. Cook, and
The defence here had contended that the Gov
ernor of the District was an officer of such high
character and dignity that the courts could not
touch him; not only he but all his associates.
The secretary was also exempt, and the comp
Of the District.
Mr.. Cook.-"Yes there is,
Mr.. Coombes.-"No, the comptroller of Wash
ingtOn, Mr.. Baker, has been continued in Office
by an act Of the Legislature.
Mr. Cook said that a law had passed creating
the Office Of comptroller of the District, and MI
Baker had been chosen. 1t had passed and was
signed before this answer was filed.
Mr. Cox.-"You are mistaken"
Mr.. COOmbs continued, arguing that the rem
edy by the ballot was not ample in this case.
Adjourned.
Proceedings To-day.
This morning Mr.: Cushing commenced his
that he should endeavor not to repeat the line OF
argument pursued by The able counsel, but would
endeavor to note such points as in their vigilance
they had not reached: The case presents seve-
raj parts, among which was
AN EXCEEDINGLY DEFECTIVE BILL THROUGH
OUT.
Omissions or multiplicity of errors were found
in all its parts. He did not propose TO attempt to
cite the numerous authorities touching upon the
right of jurisdiction of this court to interfere in
this case. He would abstain from doing so. A
sides of any question. We see that the institu-
tons of our country are multiform. We see that
the District government is organized on the plan
Of the general government, with the legislative
executive and judicial branches, each with their
appropriate functions. He gave history Of the
formation of town, parish and county organza-
tons, not governments by themselves but only
subordinates, with quasi powers for the pui-
pose Of society. The District OF Columbia was
always considered Territory, and still remains
so. II is not merely the nomenclature, but the
=
always treated the District as Territory.
THE COURTS OF THIS DISTRICT
are Ike state Courts, and administer laws the
that this court now sits the same as a court in
any OF the States. Such was the old Territory
and such is the new Territory. A Governor and
delegate in Congress, elected ia the same analo-
gy as those of the Territories are. Legislature
too, with all the functions of any other Legisla-
lures in any other Territory. This Legislature
has even the right 70 enlarge the power of the
District courts or restrict them at viii. The
Legislature of the States can change the laws of
lature of the District Of Columbia do the same
thing. 1t is then government, and belongs to
the same category as State governments. The
Senator who drafted this District of Columbia
organic act had expressed his surprise that such
q bill had been fled here, and based upon such
premises this bill is based. This is worthy of
mention, but is not intended as binding upon the
Court.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT
to deal with this matter is one OF the great points
at issue. The city of Baltimore is, before a
court Of equity, the same a. individual. So
OF the CITY Of Washington; and the power of
induction throughout this land Is tending TO be
channel through which great abuses are infiict-
ed, and should be discarded, except in extreme
cases Of great emergency. He denied the prem
ises taken by the counsel on the other side that
this court has any power to enjoin against the
executive branch of this District, holding his |
appointment directly by virtue Of Federal regs-
latiOn. This judicial power may extend to the |
acts OF the old corporation, whose officers were
elected by the people, but not over the pr esent
officers, who hold their Offices on an entirely diff
ferent tenure. Ii these gentlemen will come
into court and say that Henry ID. Cooke Edwin |
l.. Stanton and George +. Baker are administer
ing the laws of this District contrary to law and
then this court has the right TO |
restrain them; but IL has right to say that the
Legislative Assembly has passed an act Illegally
and that the executive branch shall not execute
such act. The court would cease to become
judges by throwing themselves into the political
arena, and lose that respect and reverence be-
longing to the purity of the ermine.
lie then proceeded TO answer the authorities
cited by the counsel on the other side, showing
that they were not applicable TO the case now
before them in any degree whatever. The ques-
ton Of jurisdiction in this of the court can
not be maintained. The next question is,
whether
THE ISSUING OF THE BONDS
Is in conflict with the organic act 1t cannot for
a single moment be claimed that the old debts
OF Washington, Georgetown or the county are
the debts OF the new government OF this District
This pretence is in itself absurd. The respective
OF each are responsible alone for
the payment OF these debts respectively, and the
District Of Columbia is in no way a party to
them, but only as an agent to assess each city
tor the settlement of the debts.
The District OF Columbia is not the only gov
whose legislation is limited on the sub
iect OF Indebtedness. Other States and cities are
limiled in the same manner. The State of New