Year: 1867

CDlIoh hEflbLiIAN'


word more to the public through your
paper, if you please. Acting as the mouth
piece of the opposition press Of this city, the
Picajune on the 22d instant launched bolt
against the position taken by me touching
the limited powers of the president under
the military bill. Of my pamphlet analysis
of that law the Picdytne deridingly said:


We have received from the author, Mr..
J. P. Boyd, member of the New Orleans
bar, with whom we have hitherto unhap-
pily been unacquainted, a brief analysis of
the military bill, originally contributed by
him to the New Orleans REPrBLlcAN. He
differs from Attorney General Stanbery as
to the construction of the bill, and from
Chief Justice Chase and the supreme court
as to the right of the president to direct the
action of the district commanders. The
chief Justice in the name of the supreme
court says:


"The duties of the commanding generals
must necessarily be performed under the
supervision Of the president as commander
in-chief. The duty thus imposed on the
president is in no just sense ministerial. It
is purely executive and political"


1t is to be regretted that Mr.. Boyd was
not near the chief justice when he prepared
his decision in the Mississippi case.


For the sake of brevity | pay no heed to
any personal puny Picayune thrusts at me.
All individuality Substantially sinks be-
fore the momentous questions that so deeply
move and agitate the people OF the whole
country. cannot even for moment afford
to lose sight of the living, vital questions in
which the people of this great nation, not
only OF the present generation, but OF future
generations for all time to come, are so pro-
foundly interested.


To the above point tauntingly made by
the Picdy1me, that paper on the day follow
ing courteously gave place for me to reply
thus:


You truly state that differ with Attorney
General Stanbery.


But YOU mistake infinitely when you state
| conflict essentially with Chief justice
Chase's announced opinion. Grant that the
chief Justice did use the language attributed
to him, to wit
is in no sense ministerial. 1t is purely eX-
ecutivc and political


Now what are executive duties and what
ministerial The presidents executive du-
ties are distinctly pointed out in section two
of the military bill, and do not differ from his
ordinary executive duties. But were he to
intcrmeddlc by peremptorily ordering who
shall or shall not be registered and kindred
matters of detail such would be minis
terial, aud in principle conflict with the
positions taken by the chief justice. Had
the chief justice been in cabinet council
and permitted to vote, clearly he would
have voted side by side with the secretary
of war. reassert that congress intended
to iealousy guard against such ministerial
interference by the executive.


The persistent, premeditated effort on
the part of the Picayune and kin
dred papers to maintain and keep ~
the delusion that the paramount authority
rests in the president to peremptoriIy order
and direct matters of detail touching the
duties of district commanders, makes it GU
duty to be equally industrious in public eS
positions. The overweening tendency o
the executive branch in all government
has ever been a cause for vigilant watch
fulness.


Very respectfully, ,
j. p, BOYD.