The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-06-12
A CLEAR DISTINCTION.


ing in this case, and cited so profuseiy d.
the bar.
CLEAR DISTINCTION.
In the case OF the State OF Mississippi
y Andrew Johnson. which was Dill 70
entotn the President Of the United states
and the military commandant OF the
military district OF Mississippi from car
rving into effect certain provisions OF
the reconstruction acts Of 1901, the Sh-
preme Court said that IAN attempt on
the part OF the judicial department OF the
government TO enforce the performance
of Executive and POLITICAL duties OF inc
President might be justly characterize
In the language OF CHIEF justice MAJ
shall. as AN absurd and excessive "a
travagance.
81 Is true." saws the Court, that in
the instance before us the interposltion
of the court is rot sought 10 enforce
action by the executive under consutu-
tional legislation. but to RESTRAIN sucH
action under legislation alleged 70 be
unconstitutional But we are unable TO
perceive that this circumstance taxes inc
case out OF the general principles which
forbid judicial interference with the eA-
ercise Of executive discretion.
"The Congress is the legislative de-
partmcnt OF the government; the Presi-
dent is the executive department. Neither
can be restrained in its action by the
judicial department; though the acts OF
both. when performed, are, in proper
cases subject to its cognizance.'
This language Of the Supreme Court Is
quoted to show that the court was at
pains to distinguish between acts OF pup
lie officers which were political ana exc
cutive. and those which were merely min
isterial. and between duties Of officers
as officers, and those which belong 10
persons as mere citizens.
These distinctions are carefully adhered
20 by the Supreme Court in the subse-
quent decisions which have cited. / do
not think IT necessary TO point out how
particularly and carefully ii has done
so. in those cases.
IN the one at bar, the person enjoined
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 per-
forming political functions.
The dctles which he was discharging
were political. exclusively political, and
did not appertain 10 him as a private
citizen. ] think the teaching OF the cases
| have cited is clear. that a court can
not by injunction. prohibit public officer
generally from discharging political
duties imposed b. law. II the law be
vicious. the remedy must be sought else
where than in the courts. Probably the
homely way Of getting rid Of bad law,
recommended by General Grant, Is the
best; viz. by enforcing it rigidly.
! do not think that the fact was so,
but let it be admitted for the sake of
argument that the duties of the regis
tration officer who was enjoned in this
case. were entirely ministerial. aifoIding
no room for discretion, yet they were
strictly political. They dealt with that
prime subject in a republic-the elective
franchise. The duties were prescribed 10y
legislation. and the performance Of them
was an executive act. For the court 10
enjoin an executive officer generally from
dscnareing those duties was for the jul
dietary TO invade the province of both
the other two independent departments
at once. 1t was. so far as the injunction
operated. a nulihcatiOn of legislation.
and prohibition Of the performance
OF important executive duties.
SO far as the rights Of the individual
complainant in the bill were concerned
IL may have been competent for the court
10 grant individual relief. The Supreme
Court Of the United States the other day
granted relief from the payment Of an in
come tax % the individual complainant
in the suit before it. but IL went no fur
Their. On the authority of Mississippi Us
Johnson, supra. we may assume that ii
would not have entertained bill for en-
joining inteInal-rcvenue officers of the
government from collecting income taxes
generally. The judicial power covered
the right to grant individual relief, but
did not extend to the general power OF
repeating the law imposing the tax as &c
the entire public.
l repeat, that in the case at bar il may
nave been competent for the court 10
grant individual relief. But the bill asked
more. II asked similar relief for all citi.
zens Of the county situated like the com.
piainant. IL practically asked relief for
numerous political party forming a p0r-
ton Of that people 10 whom the Legis.
lature was solely responsible for its laws
and 20 whom alone the genius Of our i'm.
stitutions makes the Legislature respon.
sibe. Moreover, il brought the court
into immediate and active contact with
party condensation. II made the court a
controlling factor In party strife.
can imagine nothing more pernicious
than direct participation by the judi
ciary. by judicial action. in the politics
Of the people The bill asked practically
that the process Of registration under M,
laws Of the State should be suspended
In an entire county during the pleasure
of the court. and that ali the citizens
OF "A county TOT lUtU ltElNltlel as voters
should be denied the right Of suffrage
during that pleasure. IL seems 10 me
that the mere statement OF this view OF
the case shows that the Injunction was
improvidently granted.
United States Circuit Court 81 Appeals.
The following business was transacted
before the United States Circuit Court Of
Appeals yesterday.
Boyden Power Break Company VS..
Westinghouse Air Brake Company. on APP
peal and cross appeal from Circuit Court
Of Maryland. Further argued by Lysan-
der Iill and Hector Il. Fenton for the
Boyden Company. and concluded by
Frederick H. Belts for the Westinghouse
Company, and cause submitted.
George =. Hudson claimant. Of Barge
Glide appellant. VS.. George w. Grit
fin. appellee. from District Court Of Mary
land on motion Of appellant, ordered that
commission take testimony issued under
Rule IL Of the Supreme Court rules.
W. Briggs Green, appellant, VS.. Lau-
renee +. Mills, appellee South Carolina
Req ration case Statement Of opinion
and orders Of Circuit Court Of April 18th.
and May s. 1895. reversed and injunction
dissolved. and cause remanded with d.
rection 10 dismiss bill
Rules Of Circuit Court OF Appeals
amended so as 10 make the terms OF the
court fall on the first Tuesdays of Feb
ruary. May and November.
The court then adjourned.