Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1878-06-26
Batter and the Simmel BIZ.
HIS DISSENT FROM THE Report OF
THE JUDICIARY C0MMITTEE-A
ARACTERIsTIC BRIEF FROM
THE LOWELL LAWYER.

HIS DISSENT FROM THE REPORT OF
THE JUDICIARY CoMMITTEE-A
CHARACTERISTIC brief" FROM
THE LOWELL LAWYER.
WASHINGTON, June lS.-Gen. But
Ter, as an individual member OF the
judiciary committee, to-day submitted
to the House Of Representatives his
reasons for dissenting from the reso-
luton and report Of the majority IN re-
gard to the inviolability Of the Presi-
dents title. He says
THE resolution of the majority IS
simply an expression Ofopinion that the
two houses Of the Forty-lourth Congress
having counted the vote cast for Presl-
dent and Vice-President, and declared
the result of the election, there is no
power in subsequent Congress to re-
verse that declaration. Certain | am OF
that opinion on this question was not
asked by the State Of Maryland, either
by the resolution of the State or by the
bill. Both sought onlyremedy through
the courts. l could agree to that
opinion, and yet the question submitted
to the committee would not be answered.
That declaration, if made, can never
be reversed. either by Congress or the
courts" lie agrees with the COM
miltee that Congress has no power un-
der the constitution to confer upon the
Supreme Court Of the United States the
original jurisdiction sought forit ID the
Blalr-Kimmel bill, but he says:
The question at issue is whether the
actual President of the United States
has Just and legal title to the Office he
hol DIS. A contestation upon that ques-
ton. if it were possible to be had before
the court, would make case which
may well enough be defined TO be a con-
troyersy between cOntendine parties
under the forms Of law before a court.
If "a proper law were passed by which
this contention could be brought
before the Supreme Court in behalf of
the people of the United States, through
the Attorney General, or by any other
known means, then ne one would
doubt that a case would be made
raising under the constitution and laws
of the United States, and such case
would be within the judicial power Of
the United States, which Is vested in
one Supreme Court and in such inferior
courts as the Congress may from time
to time ordain and establish
Now unless it is said that this con-
tention does not involve construction
of the constitution and laws OF the
United States. it Is clearly within the
jurisdiction OF the Supreme Court. which
s specifically vested with thi, judicial
power by the constitution. This supreme
and universal grant Of judicial power|
and jurisdiction by the constitution toI
the Supreme Court the majority ol thc
committee indlt convenient ID ignore
and omit IRON their report, and c.n-
tent themselves by saying lhat they arc
of opinion that the expressions tcIse.)
and controversies We're n0t intended by
the trainers Of the constitution 10 cm-
brace an original proceeding by State
IN the Supreme Court OF thc United
States to Dust any iucum' cat ilom o
political oilicc".
Gen. Butler fully concur, m tAatI
OpiniOn, but he Is unable ,O see hJN il
could be supposed that Jurisdiction was
claimed to arise nnder a special grant %.
jurisdiction Of the case or controversy"
between a State and citizens Of another
State. The question at bar is no
such question. 1t is a question between
the United States and The people there
of and the person filing an Office TO
which it is claimed he has in law and
equity no title. After further argument
Gen. Butler says:
But the constitution does not im-
part to either of the three branches OF
the government any such iadepcu-
dence OF the others as the argument o.
the committee assumes. Congress
cannot try case, but the proPcrpow-rs
Of the judiciary are for the most part
inexeculable wiihcHt suitable proy.s lons
Of law on the part Of Congress. 50
Congress cannot appoint a secrcar}
of state or the treasury. bat such oii-
GERS exist only in virtue O. acl, o. Con
gress. and the statue book J., fall Of
provisions of law defining or limiting
the functions OF the President in pass
ing which Congress las complete
power by two-thirds vote ia despite o.
the President. As to thc relation OF
the judiciary to the President, il !, uo-
torious that the legality OF the eiiicial
acts of the President AID OF those of
he heads Of departments. which are in
Jaw his acts, continually comes under
the supervision Of the judiciary. Not
the Supreme Court only. bat inferior
courts. which not seldom have had oc-
casion to pronounce acts Of tie Prc>.-
dent or OF his secretaries contrary 10 the
constitution or to the principles Of CONF
mon justice. And as to the person oi
the President, whence comes this nOycl
doctrine that he is above the law Of the
lend ? God forbid that / President of
the United States should ever commit
common crime. but if he were to do SO.
is he net amenadlc to the law therefor
If lie usurps possession Of the property
of another. may he not be sued in the
courts? And yet, according TO the
theory of the committee, lie may com-
NIT the greatest possible act OF llicsahtj |
-usurpation Of his onice-wihout |
amenableness to the Judiciary or any |
other power. / do most earnestly pro-
test against all such cXaeecraions OF |
the Office Of the President. 30 man in |
the United States. be lac high or low, Is |
above the law, and deplorc the actual |
condition Of the presidency to maintain
which unchallenged wise and good men |
are driyen to such desperate reasons Of
1.-The committee further rest ihe hnaii-
~ Of the declaration upon the action
of the body known as an electoral COM /
mission. AS TO this commission | have
made lorg, patient and painful search
for any constitutional authority or pre-
cedent for the interference Of such a
body in the counting of the electoral
votes. l do not regret to say that /
have not been able to find such auihoT-
tv. The fact that il has been exercised |