The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-04-10
GheGrttelIfgetttoer.
The Probability that Gov. Jacob
will Pay no Attention to Judge
Wards Injunction.


refuse to recognize the binding obligation
OF Judge Wards injunction, and that he
illwhen the time is up middle Of May
proceed to pack up the archives Of the
commonwealth and ship them to Wheel
ing, II lntimatcs that he has already
prepared an opinion in which he takes
the position that the recent act oi remov-
al /. not matter for the courts to pass
upon, and that even should the archives
BE- detained at Charleston the Capital OF
the State would nevertheless be at Wheel
ing under the law, The Journal states that
it il the opinion OF the Governor that a
Circuit Judge has no power to interfere
with the duties or acts Of the Governor,
that he Is amenable to the Legislature for
his official acts, and that he cannot be
prevented from doing what he under
stands to be his duty except by legislative
authority. The result OF this conflict Of
opinion between the Governor and Judge
Ward will be about thus, according to tho
Journal, when the time comes;
"When the ninety days expire after the
adjournment Of the Legislature, the
Governor will be prevented from remov-
ing the archives OF the State, but will bo
likely to 90 himself, aud execute the laws
from Wheeling stand point, Mean
time the Courts may decide the law un.
constitutional, then Of course everything
that might be done ut Wheeling, as the
State Capital, would be illegal, and the
prosperity Of the State might thereby be
very much disturbed"
Our friends Of the Journal are perhaps
unnecessarily apprehensiye as to what
may happen in case the Governor follows
out the instructions Of the Legislature
and comes to Wheeling, No doubt Ills
Exccllency will weigh well the proper
action for hini to take before he takes it ;
and he has shown in the past That when
he decides upon his proper course he is
not the nnn to be deferred from periOrm-
ing his duty. Governor Jacob Is n
lawyer, and Is more or less familiar with
the preccdents Of the law that bear upon
the issue between him and Judge Ward.
Among these precedents he is no doubt
aware Of the celebrated case that wNs de-
cided by the Supreme Court Of the United
States in 1866, known as the State Of
Mississippi ~. Andrew johnson, Presi-
dent OF the United States. That case, in u
few words, was this. Judge Sharkey and
X. ]. Walker on behalf Of the State Of
Mississippi, asked leave to file u bill in
the Supreme Court perpetnally enjoinins
and restraining Andrew Johnson "from
executing or in any manner carrying out
Certain acts Of Congress known rs the
Reconstruction acts, on the ground that
they were unconstitutional. The case
was elaborntely argued for the State OF
Mississippi, byi these two celebrated law
yers, and for the United States, by At
torney General Stanberry. After hear
ing the arguments Chief Justice Chase
delivered the opinion Of the Court deny
ing the application for the injunction oI
the grounds (Ns stated In the syllabus
that the President Of the United State
cannot be restrained by injunction iron
carrying into effect Nn act OF Congress
alleged to be unconstitutional nor will
bill having such purpose be allowed tt
be filed. II makes no difference whethe
such incumbent Of the Presidential oilic'
be described on the bill as President, oI
simply as citizen OF II State"
In delivering the opinion of the coIIrI
the Chief Justice took occasion to remarI
that chad 1t been supposed at the bal
"that this court would, in any case, in
"terpose, by injunction, to prevent tn
"executiOn Of an unconstitutional act b!
Congress, it can hardly be doubted thai
"applications with tllnt object would have
"been heretofore addressed to it," llav
ing made thi, forciblc observation I'll,
Chief Justice proceeded to say tia
"the Congress is the Legislative depart
"ment Of the government the PreSlden
"is the executive department. Neither
"can be restrained in its action by th'
judicial departmcnt;.though tho acts o
"both, when performed, arc, In prope
ceases, ubtect to ia coghizahcc." III
illustrated lhe mischief and anarch!
which an injunction proceeding ngains
the President might possibly work a
follows;
"suprose the bill filed and the in
junction prayed for allowed. II th,
President refuse Obedience, II Is needles
to observe that tlie COnrt is withon
power TO enforce is process. II, on tht
other hand, the President complies will
the order Of the Court and refuses to exc
cute the nCts Of Congress, is II not Clea
that collision may occur between I'll,
Executive and Legislative Department
Of the Government MaynOt the llouS
Of Representatives impeach the Presiden
for sltrh refusal? And III that case coult
this Court interfere, in behalf Of th'
President, thus endangered by compliance
with its mandate, and restrain hy injuhc
ton the Senate Of the United States iron
sitting a. court Of impeachment
Would the strange spectacle he offered 4