Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1907-02-04

FOUND In the executive department. OF the
It is specifically placed in said department
by the VIII OF Congress- that there - no
right In the complainant or In any resident
OF the District to question the exercise OF
the act OF Congress In its exclusive control
OF the said District save in 30 far ~ such
act or acts Of Congress- may contravene tho
fundamental rights OF life. liberty, property
citizens of the United States, or those re-
siding In territories subject to Its jurfs-
dfctton. and that In It's exclusive control of
the government OF the said District of Co
lumbia the Congress Of the said United
States h empowered to apportion and locate
the appointment OF inferior ofncers in the
District of Columbia and the regulation Of
the Internal government Of the District Of
Columbia in such wise as It may deem At
and expedient. and without regard to the
COORDINATION OF such power Of appointment
and regulation Of municipal economy with
tho Legislative. executive and judicial de-
partments provided for In the national and
state governments"
Calls for Opinion Of Law.
As to the allegations Of the twelfth para
graph of the bill, that 1t was not the in
tent Of Congress by its act approved June
20. 1895. to abolish the corps or body Of
teachers of the schools Of the said Dis
trict, as the same was. constituted at the
date of the passage of the act. the de-
fendants submit that the same call for an
opinion of matter of law, and that they
are not obliged to answer or furnish the
same. but state that the remaining allega-
tons of the paragraph are untrue in that
the complainant, independently of the act,
or Of any action of the defendants. as the
board of education, continued such super
vising principal as he had been since May
"a. 1904. the truth and the fact being that
September "A. 1906. the defendants duly
appointed and continued the complainant
as supervising principal under a different
system and at different salary, the salary
being an increase over his previous salary
and being alone authorized by the act Of
June 20 1905. under which act the defend
ants were put into existence as the board.
The allegations in the paragraph that Car
oozo Is not and never has been subject to
the authority or Jurisdiction of the de-
fendants acting as the board, the defend
ants submit, are untrue.
Subject to Authority.
On the contrary, they state that since
the 4th day of September. 1906. the COM
plainant has continuously been subject to
the authority and jurisdiction Of the de-
PENDANTS as board, and has continuously
recognized them as the board; has received
his salary under their authorization. and
In all his duties as supervising principal
has acted under the expressed and implied
recognition of their existence as the said
board OF education de jure and de facto.
1t Is added that in his petition for a writ
of mandamus against the respondents as the
board of education Cardozo swore that the
respondents were duly appointed pursuant
to the act approved June 20. 1906, and at
that time were and previously thereto had
been, the said board of education provided
for in the said act.
Legal Rights Involved. go
1t is declared that Cardozo cannot in and
by the bill contend that the defendants
have no legal right to try him at ALL as
they are not the board of education, and
in the same bill to contend that the charges
and specification on which the board is
trying the complainant do not import any
matter of offense for which the said COM
plainant can be tried.
Further answering. the defendants state
that the complainant has not shown any
to secure any restraining or injunctive
order against the defendants in the
premises.
Interest In Proceedings.
Members Of Congress are taking a deep
interest in the outcome Of the proceedings
that haye been instituted before the District
Supreme Court to determine the constitu-
tionality Of the act Of last June reorgantz-
ing the school administration Of the Dis
trict by RELOCATING to the judges Of that
court the power OF appointing the members
Of the school board. The question OF con
stftutionality was broached while the bin
was in the course OF passage, but those in
whose minds doubt arose as to the legal
ity of the method Of appointment were
willing to allow the question to be settled
later If 1t should be formally raised.
In that connection much comment has
been aroused by the discovery In the Law
Library at the Capitol of volume of old
Dallas Reports" published in 1898, con-
tanning an opinion rendered April 5. 1891.
by the circuit court for the district of New
York. consisting Of Jay, chief Justice;
Gushing, Justice. and Duane. district Judge,
+ H., IT, 10,
act of Congress 80 provide for the settle
ment of the claims of widows and orphans
barred by the limitations heretofore estab-
lished, and to regulate the claims to in
valid pensions" The court unanimously
declared as follows
THAT by the Constitution Of the United
States the government thereof Is divided
into three distinct and Independent
branches. and that it is the duty of each to
abstain from and to oppose encroachments
on either.
Cannot Assign Duties to Judiciary.
THAT neither the legislative nor the ex-
ecutive branches can constitutionally assign
to the judicial any duties but such as are
properly judicial and to be performed in q
judicial manner.
THAT the duties assigned to the circuit
courts, by this act, are not of that descrip-
ton, and that the act itself does not appear
to contemplate them as such: inasmuch as
IL SuDJeCtS CN6 Q6ClStONS Oh tHe COURTS, MdQe
pursuant to those duties. first to the con-
sideration OF and suspension of the Secre-
tary at War. and then to the revision Of the
legislature: whereas by the Constitution
neither the Secretary at War nor any other
executive officer, nor even the legislature
are authorized to- sit as q court Of errors
on the judicial acts or opinions CT this
court"
In the same volume is another opinion on
the same line rendered April 49, 1892. by
the circuit court for the district of Penn
sylvania, consisting of Wilson and Blair
justices. and Peters. district Judge, in the
form Of a letter to the President Of the
United States:
TT Is a principle important to freedom
that in government the judicial should be
distinct from and Independent Of the legis-
lative department To this important prin-
ciple the people Of the United States in
forming their Constitution have manifested
the highest regard"
Opinion in North Carolina.
similar opinion was expressed by the
circuit court for the district of North Caro-
lima. consisting Of Iredell. justice. and Sit
greaves. district Judge, in a letter to the
President on the same subject.
''That the legislative. executive ami Judi
cial departments are each formed in q sep
arate and fndNDendent manner and that