The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-29
NO CASE FOR THE COURT
JUDGE BAKER REFUSES TO AID DEP
UTY MARSHAL TAYLOR.
Appointment and Removal of Em-
pIoyes Involve the Exercise of
Judgment and Discretion.

Judge Baker, OF the united states lis
trict Court. yesterday handed down his de-
cision in the civil-service case. The appli-
| cation for an injunction was dismissed for
want of jurisdiction. The suit was brought
by Charles P. Taylor, an office deputy in
the marshals Office to enjoin the marshal
| from removing him in violation of the civil
service rules. In discussing the question Of
jurisdiction the court said:
| Under our system Of government, how
! ever 1t may be in the parent country, al
| offices are created by law, and exist for the
| public good and not for private emolutiOn
| Honesty, capacity and fitness, and not par
| tisan activity, should determine the right
| rather than the latter will afford the people
| an efficient public service. And in so far
| as the civil-service law tends to the secur-
! ing of a better civil service, it will commend
! itself to the people; and it ought to receive
| and ] doubt not 1t will receive, from the
| judicial department all the aid which. un-
| ers in our national system, can be accorded
! to ii. However ready the courts may be
to aid in securing better and more. eff
| Gent ciVil-service they may not do this by
| oVerpassing the proper limitations OF ju-
| dicial authority.
Lying at the threshold of every suit
brought in court Of the United States is
| the question of jurisdiction. National courts
of equity have no jurisdiction over causes
quate remedy at law Nor, under the dis
trlbution of power in the federal COnstitu-
IlOn nave the courts OF law JURISDICTION OF
| questions of legislative or executive char
acter
COURT CANNOT INTERFERE.
ut was settled in the case of Marbury VS..
Madison. l Cranch 1877. that the national
courts cannot rightfully interfere with exec
utive action in any case where an executive
Office il authorized to exercise judgment or
discretion in the performances of an official
act. IT is only in cases where an executive
officer is required to perform mere minis
terial duty involving no exercise of judg-
ment or discretion that the court may con-
troll or direct the performance of such min
isterial acts. The appointment and remoV al
| of officers or employees involve the exercise
Of Judgment and discretion. and have never
been regarded or held to be mere minis
ut is firmly settled that courts of chan
cery concern themselves only with matters
| OF property and the maintenance of civil
| rights. Such courts have no jurisdiction in
matters of an executive or political nature,
nor do they interfere with the duties of any
| department of the government. except I'M
der special circumstances, and then only
! when necessary to the protection or rights
| of property; nor can they interfere to re-
strain criminal or immoral acts unless they
affect or threaten to invade rights or prop
And it is clear that the complainant has
| in no just sense, a right of property in his
office employment. for. If he had; Con-
.S~N'i'i'
| flee or to impair its tenure. To assume Jur-
isdiction to control the exercise of executive
| or political powers. or to protect individuals
in the enjoyment of purely political rights
would be to invade the domain OF other de-
partments of the government, or to in
trench upon the jurisdiction OF the courts
''If the marshal is vested with the power
to remove his office deputies a court of
equity cannot interfere with his exercise
| of judgment and discretion in making such
removal If he is not possessed of such
power his act of removal is a mere harm
| less assumption, which will be treated as q
nullity whenever and wherever drawn in
question, without resorting to a court of
equity The court cannot assume that the
attorney general or the President OF the
| United States will not at once correct the
wrongful act of the marshal when brought
TO their attention The power and author
ity of the executive department are ample
| to correct all acts of usurpation or insub-
ordination on the part of the marshal and
for this if for no other reason, this court,
as a court of chancery. is without Jurisdlc-
REDRESS AT WASHINGTON.
The court declares that he might rest
the decision at this point but the other
| phases of the question had been ably argued
and as he had been invited to express his
views he goes further and shows that the
plaintiff would have no case in court of
law He discusses the position of deputies
under the early law when they were clearly
! simply employees of the marshal, and finds
that the law Of 1896 did not materially
change this relationship. Under this law
the attorney general determines how many
| deputies NAV be employed in an Office and
| what their compensation shall be. The
marshal makes the appointments, and the
| power of removal is therefore discretionary
! with him The executive department, of
| course, has right to make such rules as it
| may see fit for the internal government of
! the department and if the marshal is
| threatening to violate these rules, the re-
dress of the PLAINTIFF lies with the Depart
| ment of Justice at washington. The prop
(, osition that neither the resident nor the
| Cfvil-service Commission can legislate with
! the effect of law, either with or without
| the authority of congressional statute, the
! court declares to be too elementary to need
! discussion The civil-service rules are there
! fore not law and do not give ground for in
| farfnrpnca by the courts.