Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1895-06-12

but In my Judgment one citizen cannot,
under pretence OF rlghting his own wrongs,
disfranchse others, ! do not think th ia
junction or otherwise with the enforce
ment of laws by officers holding ana DE-
irving their powers from these laws; GER
tainly not 10 the extent in which IL ~
attempted to be done by this bill. In ar
irving at this conclusion have not con
sidered the question whether or not tne
registration laws OF South Caroiina Vio
late the Federal Constitution or laws.
prefer to rest my opinion upon the grounl
of the independence of the different de-
partments OF government; upon the I'M
policy OF Interference by the courts III
questions which Will result in drags,n.k
them constantly into the arena OF party
polltics: and upon the general principe
that each department of the government
and each officer thereof. high or low, mas ~
the right to administer. ACCORDING 70 NE
best Judgment the duties imposed upon
him by the laws creating his once; AS
Illustrating these general principles re-
fer 10 the following decisions: MISSISSIPPI
w. Johnson, I Wall H'i ,' Gslnes VS. vs.
Jumel, 107 United States. I'll: Hagood vs.
Southern, III United States, %; Ayers In
re, 1923 United States. Az; in re sawyer
12i United States, ~. ..
1t is useless 10 cite the many cases
which bear on the questions ARISING IN
this case. and cited so profuseiy AT the
bar
CHIEF-JUSTICE MARSHAf.L'S WORDS
In the case OF the State OF Missls-
sippi vs. Andrew Johnson, which was
a bin to enjoin the President OF INC
United States and the military comma no
ant OF the military district OF Mlssis-
sippi from carrying into erect certaI'l
provisions OF the reconstruction ac's oi
1851 the Supreme Court said, that AN
attempt on the part OF the judicial De
par. ment OF the government to enforce
the performance of executive and politi-
cab duties of the President might DC
Justly characterized in the language on
Chief-Justice Marshall. as an absurd ana
excessive extravaganza.
''It Is true" says the court, that IN
the instance before US the interposinon
OF the court is not sought 20 enforce
action by the Executive under consutu-
tiona legislation, but TO restrain such
action under legislation alleged 10 pe
unconstitutional But we are unable
to perceive that this circumstance takes
the case out Of the general principles
which FORBID judicial interference win
the exercise of Executive discretion. Inc
Of the government, the President Is the
Executive department. Neither can be
restrained in it's action by the Juniciai
department; though the acts OF both.
when performed. are, in proper cases, SUD
ject TO its cogniZance."
This language OF the Supreme Court Is
quoted TO show that the court was az
pains TO distinguish between acts of pub
cutive. and those which were merely
ministerial. and between duties of Off
GERS as officers. and those which belong
TO persons as mere citizens.
These distinctions are carefully adhered
10 by the Supreme Court i'm the subse-
quent decisions which | have cited.
do not think II necessary TO point out
how particularly and carefully ii has done
so in those cases.
APPLY GRANTS REMEDY.
In the one at bar the person enjoned
from the performance Of duties was an
officer of the Executive Department OF
the government, and he was enjoined as
an officer. and not as citizen, from
performing political functions. The
duties which ne was discharging were
appertain TO him as a private citizen. !
think the teaching of the cases / have
cited Is clear-that court cannot by
injunction prohibit a public, officer gene
rally from discharging political duties
imposed by law. If the law be vicious
the remedy must be sought eisewhere
than in the courts Probably the homely
way Of getting rid of a bad law recon-
mended by General Grant. is the best
viz. by enforcing il rigidly.-
! do not think that the fact was so;
but let II be admitted for the sake of
argument that the duties of the registra-
were entirely ministerial, affor1ing no
room for discretion. yet they were strictly
political They dealt with that prime
subject in a republic-the elective fran
chise. The duties were prescribed by le-
and the performance Of then,
was an executive act. For the court to
enjoin an executive officer generally from
those duties was for the Judi
ciary 10 invade the province OF both the
other two independent departments AT
once. 1t was. so far as the Injunction
operated. nullhcaNon Of legislation. and
a prohibition Of the performance Of i'm
portant executive duties.
So far as the rights OF the individual
in the bill were concerned.
Il may have been competent for the courl
10 grant individual relief. The Supreme
Court Of the United States. the other day.
granted relief from the payment Of an
income-tax to the individual complainant
in the suit before IT, but IL went no far
Their. on the authority of Mississippi W.
Johnson. supra, we may assume that IL
would not have entertained "A bill for on
joining internal-revenue officers OF the
government from collecting income taye>
generally. The judicial power covered th-
right to grant individual relief. but did
not extend TO the general power Of re-
pealnG the law imposing the tax as to
the entire public.
| repeat that in the case at bar II may
have been competent for the court 70
more. 1t asked similar relief for all citi-
1ens of the county situated Ike the com
plainant. IL practically asked relief for
a numerous TDllitHI party lofflliE "A pOf-
ton of that people to whom the Leeisla>
ture was solely responsible for its laws.
and to whom alone the genius of our in
situations makes the Legislature respon-
sible Moreover. II brought the court into
immediate and active contact with party
condensation. II made the court con-
trolling factor in party strife.
can imagine nothing more pernicious
than direct participation by the Judi
cary by judicial action. in the politics
OF the people. The bill asked practical,s
that the process of registration under the
laws of the State should b. suspended IL,
an entire county during the pleasure of
the court. and that all the citizens of N
county not then registered rs voters
should be denied the right of suffrage du-
ring that pleasure. II seems to me that
the mere statement OF this view of the
case shows that the injunction was i'm
providently granted.
| think the bill should be dismissed.
Several Cases Heard.
Judges Gor, Simonton. and Hughes con-
stituted the court yesterday. The follow
ing cases were heard, after which the
court adjourned for the term:
Boyden Power Brake Company against
Westinghouse Brake Company. Further
argued by Lyssnder Hall and Hector r.
Fen.on for the Boyden company. and
Frederick H. Belts for the Westinghouse
company. and submitted
George T.. HUDSON, claimant or the
barge Clyde, against George W. Grahiin.
From the District Court of Maryland
Rule entered ordering commission 10
take testimony.
Rules of the Circuit Court OF Appeals
amended so as 10 make the terms of the
court fall on the first Tuesday OF Febru-
ary May. and November.
Chestnut-HiII Imperinis Defeated.
The Chestnut Hill lmperials. under the
M. r,.-r. at 81 NIn irno