addressed, may decide for himself, and equally open to be contested by every militia-man, who shall refuse to obey the orders of the president?[1] This question was much agitated during the late war with Great Britain, although it is well known, that it had been practically settled by the government, in the year 1794, to belong exclusively to the president;[2] and no inconsiderable diversity of opinion was then manifested in the heat of the controversy, pendente lite, et flagrante bello. In Connecticut and Massachusetts, it was held, that the governors of the states, to whom orders were addressed by the president to call forth the militia on account of danger of invasion, were entitled to judge for themselves, whether the exigency had arisen; and were not bound by the opinion or orders of the president.[3] This doctrine, however, was disapproved elsewhere. It was contested by the government of the United States;[4] and was renounced by other states.[5]
§ 1206. At a very recent period, the question came before the Supreme Court of the United States for a judicial decision; and it was then unanimously determined, that the authority to decide, whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president;- ↑ Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. R. 19, 29, 30.
- ↑ See Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 37.
- ↑ 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 12, p. 244 to 250; 8 Mass. R. Suppt. 547 et seq.; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 13, p. 155, &c.—At a later period this doctrine seems to have been abandoned by Massachusetts. See Report and Resolves of Massachusetts, June 12, 1818, and February 15, 1830. See also Resolutions of Maine Legislature in 1820.
- ↑ See President Madison's Message of 4th November, 1812, and President Monroe's Message, and other documents stated in Report and Resolves of Massachusetts, 15th February, 1830.
- ↑ See Vanderheyden v. Young, 11 Johns. R. 150; Rawle on the Constitution, ch. 13, p. 155 to 160; Duffield v. Smith, 3 Sergeants Rawle, 590.
