, 1877-11-10

trAotuInhfF manner, anu nlMht nave ~! tuuhh
upon !ether proposition. Tho propoctision al;
vaucel In tho bIlf and snaIstcl upnn by cf'unsei
WIS rank hcrcsy under the cxlsttng statutes AMI
syatcm at government, and that no authorities
tic ex,raordnafY position assumed y ,o,n.sl
mcnt wns the. constitutional definition Of
the powers Of Government in this State,
Ts nss sree Ssts Snnshcs assS S sse
cIary, and tho Executive Hut the Constitution,
not tat!scd With That definition, iuterdicic,l tho
Of any q tho bcGS ny
erntncnt by ettl.r Of the others. 1t vent on 10
declare that no person or collection of persons,
excrtlsing the duties and powers of one o.
.tcsnt saa n e1erc.e sy e
Of tho b{ll werc Hound, and i they could i,o
table result would he, In tho end, the assutnp-
tIon by the Courts ot every power vestcd hT tho
Constitution IN the other coord!nate depart.
meets Of tho Government, The Judiciary Dc,
| 10 npply the law, which was above both the Ex-
ccuti7c and Legislature, had the power TO rc'
| vlaw Anv act either Of Legislative or eKetu.
v' , f',aste' ss s to rt Ea't 10 e1sss ts1
to the extent Of inqutrIng and asccrtain!nE
whether the act Of the legislative body, II that
should be In question, or the net Of the excct1-
done d Of performed within tho scope OF tic
power conferred by Inv upon tho olllccr Or the
Legislature. II done within the scope Of that
power, 1t WAS no further Renewable. The pow
crB OF tic Court went that far nul no fnrthcr.
All law7writers on constitutional law laiA
down tic rule that tho rtault Of nttc!npts to In
| tctfcrc will and control md intrench upon the
exercise of tho ptopsr duties a." Of ore 1rami,' i'
result ultimately In the. ABSORPTION In ono
branch Of all the nowers Of Tho Uoycrnmcnt Il
result that would be fatal to constitutional lib
ctly, When courts exercised that power Of re:
view there was provocntiun at,dtcfnptatfon, OF
which this Cilae wns All illustration, not only to
Qncstton the power, but TO call upon The ]udlci.
nrs to review tho exercise Of tho power; not
only to call IN qucstion whether or not The act
call upon tic court to determine whether the
act WIS properly done or not. and ennnscl 1nnlt'-
tnlncd Tint TINT Has tho forbidden ground uron
mind tho constitutional obligations.
Nr. Itay then went on tu discuss tho right Of
tho Governor, under tho Constitution, to remove
any officer whom lie aad appointed, and gavo as
mard, and virtually The orgnnization and equip
mcnt, of tho militia OK tho State.
Ar. Ilay, In the cnnrso OF his argument re-
fcrrul to md rcad from numerous authorities
to sustain tits views, and ma'ntaincd that the
courts wcrc not TO determine ~, Their
discretion tho occnsions upun Which .tllc
E5ce.o must act prq%p.ly Q, might
Tint was conildcd by tho Constitution il general
terms to tho executive powrr. 1t might be crit
tciacd ~ an nbuso Of the exercise OF tht power
as n wanton exercise Of power or Va an afbltrhr1
is discretion as to whether tho Governor should
net promptly OF should yire tina anu opportt
nifty for trial, was for court 10 fnecrpose IL
discretion instead o. the discretion contlded "
fore be maintained TINT tho proposition I'D
yanccu by tho bill, nnl advocated by tho gcntIc
1s,an On the other aide, was rank iIctesy N !
constitutional aunse, and that the etlcct of 1t,
Of the Fundamental provision OF tho Consttu
tton.
The caso was taken under aivIscmcnt b,
) Judge Moore at the conclusion OF tho alGu
metils, and II will probably be some time bcfor
! It cat, be decided, 30 many authorities hovini
been quoted.
suAiS cosTRAcTa ron FUTURE DELIVERY.
, The following 10 the dccfsIun OF the 6nprcm
Court In the ca8c Of Logan VI. MtIsek u brown
tho vay @ eng ri gr oon e1sSs -
i H. to hs found In tho advaneo sheets Of I'll
8ist Illinois Reports.
ThIs action was brought by sfuslck & Brow
against Benjamin Y. Logan, to recover mono
on thu Board Of Trade III Chicago for tho dc
.fcutlant OIL Ills order. 4 trial was had before
tyry vs rtsu.tes AZ y vetfss ha h d,,T ayaF q a.
rrniud a motion fur q. new trial md rcr
D dercd Judgment on tho verdict. soyerf
!, errors liavo been assigned upon tho record b'
! we understand tho defendant relies upon thrc
! plaintiffs fauedro sell grain al agreed, and 9
. account o[ tho fallure they became indebted I
. the defendant III Il lnrger srm than they n.
y yancod him: second, the Judgment is too lare
IL any event III tho sum Of 9, ,1o3; th!rd, hi
!. tho advances sucd for by tho plaIntlils wei
y na.lo on aceount of gaming contracts In graf.
Y Which nru In violation OF tho statute, and chi
= | not 10 recovered. .,.,.
! The plaintiffs wcrc engaged In the comm!
sion business in Chicago; they purchased for II
= defendant at Ills request 90 10Y bushcls otwic'
for juno delivery and l0.N0 fpr July dcliycMr Y; v
i tic defendant lad pail ns margin sl,ao
~ dispute in relation to The facts; but on Tho si
!; ot May. 1875 tile defendant went to Ch|cat
IS IS aud, a. DO testltlcs, made nm arrangement
70 hayo him TINT morning soil ior him on Il
T. Hoard Of ,TrnJo the 10000 bushels Of WIG
Witch l,ad bsen 4, G narrassa for june Hna a.
u. done with the view, as whcat was then dcclt
4e inE, to saye tho loss on tho wheat previous
y 4, bought. .--.-..
~ ~ Tic two went together to tho Board Of Trad
ii TIC defendant testlfes TINT no restrictions We
~ ~ was VI i, Tie sale oi 1900 bushels only, q
~ hcncc tho defendant claims = large 10
ID pTUnkA, WHlGH o WuulO ut&ct ntbI HAVE A!A
" " ind The plantlI nude sale of 40,0O0 bushels,
~ os he aCrcetl. Mus!ck, however, testiaes that
NJ sold 10000 buahcs at 074 short time alter
~ Ills sale to tho defendant, vino then instruct
a. a. hln, to soil no moro ut less than G8 Ccntsr
~ ~ On tllIs account no moro wheat Was sold.
r. Hero WINS direct con0iet ln tho oyidef
cy which u was tho provlnee Of the Jury to % ssti
~ and, wlil0 It wa6 tru0 there was soite cytder
om u, teudlnV to corroborato tho defrndau
~ vrrsion Of tho tsunuact!on, yet th'
~ ~ was no such clear prepondcrar
~ Of tho Testimony In his favor on thls point
hc n to authorize an appsllate court to disturb
X. verdict Of q Jury, who have the Hitncsscs
- pliunx tho degree of credit that should
eii given 10 wituess, that an appellate court u
In | not possess.
bo Tie 10000 bushels Of wheat purchased
in. July delivery was sold At q loss Of 81 luz.
to This tem formed part of tae platntlirs 3a
to' Go tpd for this loss, tor tho reason tho p!s
sd til sold the what wronglully gu q
lly lng Market, when tho purchase '
- Ftf lad alrO1N