Although the Supreme Court of the United States had said, in the case of Kendall vs. the United States, in 1838, that so far as the President's power is derived from the Constitution he is beyond the reach of any other department, except in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, through the impeaching power, and had also indicated, in the cases of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia, in 1831, and Luther vs. Borden, in 1849, that it had no jurisdiction over political questions, there still prevailed in many minds the idea that the Court was the ultimate {145} interpreter of the Constitution in all cases of whatever nature, and that no person was exempted from its jurisdiction on account of official station. Under the influence of this idea, W. L. Sharkey, the ex-provisional Governor of Mississippi, appointed by President Johnson in 1865, undertook to obtain from the Supreme Court of the United States an injunction restraining the President of the United States from carrying the Reconstruction Acts of March, 1867, into effect. He was aided in this attempt by the Hon. Robert J. Walker, and their client in the case, as set up by them, was the "State of Mississippi." In a powerful argument, noted for both clearness and frankness, Mr. Johnson's Attorney-General, Mr. Stanbery, demonstrated that the President of the United States cannot be made subject to the jurisdiction of any court, while in office, except only the Senate of the United States, as the constitutional court of impeachment. The plea of Mr. Stanbery is also notable for another thing, viz.: the frank way in which he notified the Southerners that the President's opposition to these laws ceased with their successful passage over his vetoes, and that the President intended to execute them in spirit and letter, as it was his sworn duty to do. The Court decided, in 1866, in the case of Mississippi vs. Johnson, that "a bill praying an injunction against the execution of an act of Congress by the incumbent of the presidential office cannot be received, whether it describes him as President or as a citizen of a State." [Sidenote: The case of Georgia vs. Stanton.]