It is within the province of the political department of the government to define the method of securing rights of prop erty ceded to the United States after war, and the courts have no juriidiction to en force them except as authorized by congress; U. S.V. ,Sandoval, 167 U, S. 278, 17 Sup. Ct. 868, '42 L. Ed. 168; nor is it within the ludielat power'td to any detiaratioli the question of the length of time required for the pacification of Cuba and when the United States troops shall be withdrawn; Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, 21 Sup. Ct. 302, 45 L. Ed. 448; id. 180 U. S. 126, 21 Sup. Ct. 308, 45 L. Ed. 457; so in ascertaining the tribal and other relations of Indians, the courts generally follow the political depart ments; Farrell v. U. S., 110 Fed. 942, 49 C. C. A. 183.
If a statute is constitutional there is no power in the courts to consider whether it is In accordance with a reasonable or wise public policy ; McGuire v. Ry. Co., 131 Ia. 340, 108 N. W. 902, 33 L. R. A. (N. S.) 706; v. Ashby, 93 Va. 667, 25 S. E. 893 ; Rice v. Ionia Probate Judge, 141 Mich. 692, 105 N. W. 17; nor can the mo tives of the legislature be considered in a fudicial proceeding; State v. R. Co., 166 Ind. 580, 77 N. E., 1077; nor the motives of the executive in issuing a warrant for the rendition of a prisoner; In re Moyer, 12 Ida ho 250, 85 Pac. 897, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 227, 118 Am. St. Rep. 214.
"If a contract is entered into in behalf of the government, and a contest should arise about the meaning of the contract, it belongs to the judiciary to decide what that contract was, and if the legislature decide that questiiiti, they invade 'the province of the judiciary ;" Commonwealth v. Beaumar chats; 3 Call (Va.) 169, quoted in Bedford v. Shilling, 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 401, 8 Am. Dec. 718.
The determination of county boundaries in a suit by a county for taxes or by one coun ty against another is not a question for ju dicial inquiry but a political, one; Norfolk Southern Ry. Co. v. Washington County, 154 N. C. 333, 70 S. E. 634 ; Guadalupe Coun ty v. Wilson County, 58 Tex. 228 ; but under a statute passed subsequently to this case, the court exercised jurisdiction; Cameron's Heirs v. State, 95 Tex. 545, 68 S. W. 508; but would not do so as to surveys made be fore the enactment of the law ; Rockwell County v. Kaufman County, 69 Tex. 172, 6 S. W. 431. In another state a question of boundaries between counties was held to be one not for commissions of either county, but for a court of chancery under a taxpay er's bill ; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Carr, 1
Wyo. 96. If there is a statute, the method prescribed by it must be resorted to •before recourse cafi be had to the courts; Parish' of Caddo v. Parish of De Soto, 114 La. 366, 38 South. 273.
The separation of the three departments among which, in modern systems, the sover eign powers of government are distributed, and to some extent the difficulty involved in the effort to distribute those powers, are dis cussed in the title Exxcirrrvz POWER, which, with the title LEGISLATIVE POWER, should be read and referred to in connection with the pi•eSent "title. ' ' • • • Separation of powers, though generally adopted, does not always rest upon a constitutional basis. Whether it does or does not do so affects very ma terially the judicial power with respect to its stabil ity and independence. In England, not only the supreme legislative authority, but the power of deciding upon the constitutionality of its acts, is vested in parliament, there being no fundamental law in the nature of a written constitution to which that body must conform. The phrase English con stitution is one of constant use, and there is, un doubtedly, a body of fundamental principles which are recognized as having been finally accepted as in violable and which are grouped under that name. A recent writer soya that it "is made up of certain views which have been- read out of or read into English history and embodied in certain govern mental acts,"—"it is In a large part a matter of theory and opinion," and "the substance of it may be summed up in one sentence: All the powers of government are in the hands of parliament." Macy, Eng. Coast. 14, 16.
Practically modern opinion Is undivided as to this omnipotence of parliament, and under no form of law can its action be restrained or reviewed. Such restraint as is imposed upon it is a moral one which exists only in the potency of certain principles which, in the United States, have been crystallized into constitutional safeguards, while in England they remain, as it were, in solution, affecting, how ever, and giving form and tone to the government and the body politic. The highest judicial power in England is subordinate to the legislative power, and bound to obey any law that parliament may pass, although it may, in the opinion of the court, be in conflict with the principles of Magna Carta, or the Petition of Rights. Taney, C. J., in Gordon v. U. S., 117 U. S. 699, appendix.