one of the executive departments of the government, in the ordinary discharge of his official duties. In general, such duties, whether imposed by act of Congress or by resolution, are not mere ministerial. duties. The head of an executive department of the government, in the administration of the various and important concerns of his office, is continually required to exercise judgment and discretion. He must exercise his judgment in expounding the laws and resolutions of Congress, under which he is from time to time required to act. If he doubts, he has a right to call on the Attorney General to assist him with his counsel; and it would be difficult to imagine why a legal adviser was provided by law for the heads of the departments, as well as for the President, unless their duties were regarded as executive, in which judgment and discretion were to be exercised. If a suit should come before this court which involved the construction of any of these laws, the court certainly would not be bound to adopt the construction given by the head of a department; and, if they supposed his decision to be wrong, they would, of course, so pronounce their judgment. But their judgment upon the construction of a law must be given in a case in which they have jurisdiction, and in which it is their duty to interpret the act of Congress, in order to ascertain the rights of the parties in the cause before them. The court could not entertain an appeal from the decision of one of the Secretaries, nor revise his judgment, in any case where the law authorized him to exercise discretion or judgment. Nor can it by mandamus act directly upon the officer, and guide and control his judgment or discretion in the matters committed to his care, in the ordinary discharge of his official duties. The case before us illustrates these principles, and shows the difference between executive and ministerial acts."

The Chief Justice then goes on to show that the decision of the Secretary of the Navy in that case was entirely executive and official in its character, and that in this respect the case differed entirely from that of Kendall v. U. S.

The principle of law deducible from these two cases is not difficult to enounce. The court will not interfere by mandamus with the executive officers of the government in the exercise of their ordinary official duties, even where those duties require an interpretation of the law, the court having no appellate power for that purpose; but when they refuse to act in a case at all, or when, by special statute or otherwise, a mere ministerial duty is imposed upon them—that is, a service which they are bound to perform without further question-then, if they refuse, a mandamus may be issued to compel them. Judged by this rule, the present case presents no difficulty. The Commissioner of Pensions did not refuse to act or decide. He did act and decide. He adopted an interpretation of the law adverse. to the relator, and his decision was confirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, as evidenced by his signature of the certificate. Whether,

if the law were properly before us for consideration, we should be of the same opinion, or of a different opinion, is of no consequence in the decision of this case. We have no appellate power over the Commissioner, and no right to review his decision. That decision, and his action taken thereon, were made and done in the exercise of his official functions. They were by no means merely ministerial

ats.

The decisions of this court, which have been rendered since the cases referred to, corroborate and confirm all that has been said. The following are the most important, to wit: Brashear v. Mason, 6 How. 92, 12 L. Ed. 357; U. S. v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284, 15 L. Ed. 102; Commissioner v. Whiteley, 4 Wall. 522, 18 L. Ed. 335; Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, 18 L. Ed. 721; Gaines v. Thompson, 7 Wall. 347, 19 L. Ed. 62; U. S. v. Schurz, 102 U. S. 378, 26 L. Ed. 167; Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 U. S. 50, 5 Sup. Ct. 25, 28 L. Ed. 656. In the two last cases cited, the mandamus was granted; and they were cases in which it was held that a mere ministerial duty was to be performed by the officer.

In U. S. v. Schurz the question related to a patent for land claimed by a pre-emptor. All the proceedings had been gone through, the right of the applicant had been affirmed, the patent had been made out in the land office, signed by the President, sealed with the land office seal, countersigned by the recorder of the land office, recorded in the proper book, and transmitted to the local land officers for delivery; but delivery was refused because instructions had been received from the Commissioner to return the patent. The plea was that it had been discovered that the lands belonged to a town site. The court held that this was an insufficient plea; that the title had passed to the applicant, and he was entitled to his patent, subject to any equity which other parties might have to the land, or to a proceeding for setting the patent aside; and that the duty of the Commissioner or Secretary of the Interior had become a mere ministerial duty to deliver the instrument, as was held in Marbury v. Madison, in relation to the commission of Marbury as justice of the peace. Of course, this case is entirely different from the case now under consideration.

The case of Butterworth v. Hoe was very similar in principle to that of U. S. v. Schurz. The Commissioner of Patents had decided in favor of the right of one Gill, an applicant for a patent, in a case of interference, and adjudged that a patent should issue to his assigns accordingly. An appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Interior, who reversed the decision of the Commissioner. The latter thereupon, and for that reason, refused to issue a patent. It was a question whether an appeal lay to the Secretary of the Interior, and this court held that it did not, and that he had no jurisdiction in the matter. The court, therefore, held that the patent ought to be issued in accordance with the decision of the Commissioner, and that

the mere issue of the patent was a ministerial matter for which a mandamus would lie. This case, like that of U. S. v. Schurz, is unlike the present. All deliberation had ceased; the right of Gill, the applicant, was adjudged; there was nothing to be done but to deliver to the party the documentary evidence of his title. That was a mere ministerial matter. We think that the mandamus was properly refused, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District is affirmed.

No. 992 is similar in all essential respects to the preceding, and the decision must be the same. Judgment affirmed.

No. 993 differs materially from Nos. 991 and 992. Charles R. Miller, the relator, having made an unsuccessful application to the Commissioner of Pensions for an increase of his pension, finally appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, and in his petition for mandamus says as follows, to wit:

"That the Secretary, upon a personal, careful inspection of the record, and all the evidence filed therein in his case, and on due consideration thereof, made and rendered the following official decision: 'Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C., February 12, 1885. The Commissioner of Pensions-Sir: Herewith are returned the papers in the pension claim (certificate No. 55,356) of Charles R. Miller. It appears from the papers that Mr. Miller's claim was before this department on the 6th inst., and it was held that the pensioner is greatly disabled, and it is evident from the papers in his case that he is utterly unable to do any manual labor, and he is therefore entitled to $30 per month under the act of March 3, 1883, which has been allowed him by your office. Since the departmental decision above referred to, the papers in the claim have been carefully reconsidered by the department, and a personal examination of the pensioner made; and it satisfactorily appears that he is unable to put on his shoe and stocking on the foot of his injured leg, for the reason that the nearest point that can be reached by hand from foot is 23 inches, and for the further reason that from "necrosis of the lower vertebræ of spine, producing anchylosis of the spinal column and destruction of some of the spinal nerves," he is unable to bend his back. After a careful review of all the facts in this case, the department is constrained to think that the pensioner comes under the meaning of the laws granting pensions to those persons who require aid and attendance. The decision of the 6th inst. is therefore overruled. Very respectfully, H. M. Teller, Secretary.'

"And your orator avers that the said official decision of the Secretary of the Interior, so made as aforesaid, was a final adjudication of his claim in his favor, and conclusively establishes his right under the laws to be rerated at $25 per month from June 6, 1866; $31.25 per month from June 4, 1872; $50 per month from June 4, 1874; and $72 per month from June 17, 1878-and to be paid the difference monthly between these sums and what has been allowed him; and

all that remained for the Commissioner of Pensions to do in the premises was the simple ministerial duty of accordingly carrying the said final official decision of the Secretary into execution."

The petition goes on to state that the former Commissioner of Pensions refused to carry out the Secretary's decision to its full extent, and that the present Commissioner, the respondent, still refuses. If, as the petition suggests, the Commissioner of Pensions refuses to carry out the decision of his superior officer, there would seem to be prima facie ground for at least calling upon him to show cause why a mandamus should not issue. This was all that the petitioner asked, and this the court refused.

As a general rule, when a superior tribunal has rendered a decision binding on an inferior, it becomes the ministerial duty of the latter to obey it and carry it out. So far as respects the matter decided, there is no discretion or exercise of judgment left. This is the constant course in courts of justice. The appellate court will not hesitate to issue a mandamus to compel obedience to its decisions. The appellate tribunal in the present case is the Secretary of the Interior, who has no power to enforce his decisions by mandamus, or any process of like nature; and therefore a resort to a judicial tribunal would seem to be necessary, in order to afford a remedy to the party injured by the refusal of the Commissioner to carry out his decision.

But it is suggested that removal of the contumacious subordinate from office, or a civil suit brought against him for damages, would be effectual remedies. We do not concur in this view. A suit for damages, if it could be maintained, would be an uncertain, tedious, and ineffective remedy, attended with many contingencies, and burdened with onerous expenses. Removal from office would be still more unsatisfactory. It would depend on the arbitrary discretion of the President, or other appointing power, and is not such a remedy as a citizen of the United States is entitled to demand. We think that the case suggested by the petition is one in which it would be proper for the court to interfere by mandamus. Whether it will turn out to be such, when all the circumstances are known, can be ascertained by a rule to show cause; and such a rule, we think, ought to have been granted.

The judgment of the court below is therefore reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to grant a rule to show cause as applied for by the petitioner.

Judgments will be entered separately in the several cases.

SECTION 82.-POSTAL ADMINISTRATION

AMERICAN SCHOOL OF MAGNETIC HEALING v. McANNULTY.

(Supreme Court of United States, 1902. 187 U. S. 94, 23 Sup. Ct. 33, 47 L. Ed. 90.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri to review a decree dismissing a bill to enjoin a postmaster from carrying out an order of the Postmaster General directing the retention of letters addressed to a corporation. Reversed. The order complained of was as follows:

"Postoffice Department, "Washington, D. C., May 15, 1900. "It having been made to appear to the Postmaster General, upon evidence satisfactory to him, that the American School of Magnetic Healing, S. A. Weltmer, president, J. H. Kelly, secretary, and J. A. Kelly, at Nevada, Missouri, are engaged in conducting a scheme or device for obtaining money through the mails by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation of the act of Congress entitled 'An act to amend certain sections of the Revised Statutes relating to lotteries and for other purposes, approved September 19, 1900.'

"Now, therefore, by authority vested in him by said act and by the act of Congress entitled 'An act for the suppression of lottery traffic through international and interstate commerce and the postal service, subject to the jurisdiction and laws of the United States, approved March 2, 1895,' the Postmaster General hereby forbids you to pay any postal money order drawn to the order of said concern and persons, and you are hereby directed to inform the remitter of any such postal money order that payment thereof has been forbidden, and that the amount thereof will be returned upon the presentation of a duplicate money order, applied for and obtained under the regulations of the department.

"And you are hereby instructed to return all letters, whether registered or not, and other mail matter which shall arrive at your office directed to the said concern and persons, to the postmasters at the offices at which they were originally mailed, to be delivered to the senders thereof, with the word 'fraudulent' plainly written or stamped upon the outside of such letters or matter. Provided, however, that where there is nothing to indicate who are the senders of letters not registered, or other matter, you are directed in that case to send FR.ADM.LAW-42