The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1875-09-18

courts Whether these courts have ant
may exercise power and authority over
the executive and other executive officer:
ofthe several States, in any case which
the State courts may exercise such power
and authority We are not called en- to de.
! tsrmine. 1t will be found on examination
/ of the numerous authorities above cited
that there is wide difference and great
conflict in the decisions and authorities
on the Jurisdiction and authority of the
State courts to compel the chief executive
to perform duties whether declared by
the constitution or required by law. In
the case 29th Michigan 800, Judge Cooley
delivered the opinion of the court and
Judges Campbell and Christancy con-
Cured. Graves, chief justice, did not sit
But in this case, the latest we have seen
was decided at the April session, 1874.
1t was decided on application for rule
for mdndGmuS against the Governor OF
Michigan, after argument by counse!
for and against the application, that
abuse OF duty devolyed upon the ex-
ecutive of the State rather than upon an
inferior officer, it will be presumed 10
have been done because his superior judg
ment, discretion and sense of responsible
ity were contlded in for more accurate
faithful and discreet performance than
could be relied upon, il the duty were
put upon an officer chosen for inferior
duties, and such duty can seldom be
considered rs merely unconstitutional
as regards the question OF immunity
from coercion by the courts, the Cover
nor ola State occupies a position anala-
guus rather 10 the President Of the
CniVn rather than to the heads of the
Executive departments of the Federal
Government; and decision that the lat
ter may be compelled by mandautuS to
perform mere ministerial duty, is not in
point when the writ is sought against the
Governor. As to all authority specially
contided to the Governor, whether by the
Constitution or by statute, 1t will be pre-
sumed that reasons of conclusive ma.
turc required it to be 50 contided AS an
authority property and peculiarly, if not
exclusively, pertaining to the Executive
Department, and therefore not subject 10
coercion by judicial powers. In the case
in 9TH Ohio State r., 52S, before named,
it was held that although the Governor
in the exercise of the Executive powers
of the State may, from the nature of his
authority, have II discretion cannot be
controlled by judicial power; yet, in re-
gard to ministerial act, which might
nave been deYolvcd upon ANY
other officer of the State, and
affecting any specific private
right, he may be made amenable to the
compulsory process OF this court by man
damus." This last case was decided at
December term, 1886. We have quoted
from the syllabus OF the two cases last
above named, rs examples Of the conflict
which is TO be found in other cases cited.
Under the 9th section of the 4th article of
the Constitution, the Governor rs well as
other State officers, may DO impeachcd
for mal-admlniStratiOu, corruptlun In.
competency, gross immortality, neglect of
duty, or any high crime or misdsmeanor.
The House IF Delegates has the sole
power of impeachment and the Senate
the sole power to try impeachmrnts.
Other questions were argued in the
CAUSE utLvIc vs. OuL ~ w l'S"Ih NV
questions We have already determined n
amounting to final disposition OF this
case in any aspect that now presents
itself to Us, We consider that We are not
called upon or required to determine
further in the cause.
For the foregoing reasons tho decree of
the Circuit Court OF Kauawha rendered
in this cause on the Sth day of May 1873,
lsoving the injunction awarded in the
cause and dismisslng the bill filed there
in, is affirmed with costs and $4,000
damages to the appeIIees against the APP
pcllants.
Judges Huffman and Moore Concurrcd
in the foregoing opinion declared by
Judge Raymond. II.