페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

The following have been Associate Justices:

Terin of
Name.

Born.

Died,

Service. John Rutledge, S. C..... 1789-1791

1800 William ('usling, Mass... .1789-1910 1733

1810 James Wilson, Penn

1789-1798 1742 1798 John Blair, Va...

1789-1796 1732 1800 Robert H. Harrison, Md.. 1789-1789 1745 1790 James Iredell, N. C.

1790-1799 1750 1799 Thomas Johnson, Md..

1791-1793 1732 1819 William Paterson, N. J... 1793-1805 1743 1806 Samuel Chase, Md..

.1796-1811 1741 1811 Bushrou Washington, Va.. 1798-1829 1759 1829 Alfred Moore, N. C.

1799-1804 1755 1810 William Johnson, S. C..

1804-1831

1834 Brockholst Livingston, N. Y. 1806-1823 1757 1823 Thomas Todd, ky. .1807-1826

1826 Joseph Story, Mass..

1811-1815 1779 1845 Gabriel Duvall, Md.

.1811-1835 1751 1844 Smith Thompson, N. Y.. .1823-1815 1767 1845 Robert Trimble. Ky....

1826-1829

1829 John McLean, Ohio..

1829-1861 1785 1861 Henry Baldwin, Penn...

1830-1846 1779

1846 James M. Wayne, Ga..

.1835-1367 1786 1867 Philip P. Barbour, Va..

1936-1941

1841 John Catron, Tenn..

.1837-1863

1786

1865 John McKinley, a la

.1837-1852

1852 Peter V. Daniel. Va...

.1841-1360 1785

1860 Samuel Nelson, N. Y..

.1845-.... 1792 Levi Woodbury, N. H..

1845-1851 1790 1851 Robert C. Grier, Penn..

1840-, ... 1194 Benjamin R. Curtis, Mass. .1851-1857 1809 James ... Campbell, Ala. .1853-1861 1802 Nathan Clifford. Me.

,1858-... 1803 Noah H. Swayne, Ohio.. .1862-.

1805 Samuel F. Miller, Iowa.. 1862-.

1816 David Davis. Illinois..

.1862

1815 Stephen J. Field, California .....1363-.

1817 Efforts were made at the Supreme Court clerk's office, and at the State Department, to ohtain more accurate information as to the respective dates of service, but without success.

198, The “ COMPENSATION” of Judges is at present as fol- State the lows: Chief-Justice, six thousand five hundred dollars; Associate present Justices, six thousand dollars each. 10 Stat. 655; Brightly's tion?" big. 819. The District Judges' salaries vary from three thousand five hundred dollars to five thousand five hundred dollars.

406. This compensation prohibits the imposition of a tax upon a Can it ho judge's salary. Commonwealth v. Mann, 5 W. & S. 415. Congress taxed ? may give tho Circuit Court original jurisdiction in any case to which the appellate jurisdiction extends. (Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wh. 821.) Jones v. Seward, 41 Barb. 272-3.

[graphic]

WC

does the

And soe United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336. When the Act of Congress directs the transfer of the case. have nothing to do with the validity of the law as a defense to the action. (Story's Const. ch. 38, § 903, 906, et seq.; Martin F. Hunter, 1 Wh. 304; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 364; Osborn v. The Bank of the United States, 9 Wh. 738.) Jones v. Seward, 41 Barb. 273. As to what cases will be transferred from the State to the federal court, seo 1 Brightly's Dig. Laws U. S. p. 128. $ 19, notes d, e, g, and h; Smith v. Rines, 2 Sumn. 338; Wilson v. Blodget, 4 McLean, 363; Hubbard v. The Northern R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 715, 719; Welch v. Tenent, 4 Cal. 203 ; Ladd v. Tudor, 3 W. & M. 3:25. No suit can be removed in which a State is a party. New Jersey v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 344. After the proper steps for removal, any subseqnent proceedings in the State courts are illegal. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97; 1 Kent's

Com. 295. To what Sec. II.—[1.] The judicial power shall extend to all judicial cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitupower extend ! tion, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, 199-200. or which shall be made under their authority ; to all

cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, 439-455. and consuls ; to all cases of admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State ; between citizens of different States; between citizens of the same State, claiming lauds under grants of different States, and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens

or subjects. Distinguish 199. JUDICIAL POWER, as contradistinguished froin legislativo the judicial power and executive power, is the power to hear and determine tive power all the cases of law and fact. «hich arise between the government 14. 71. 185, and parties, or between parties, under this Constitution, the law 165, 211. of nations, and the laws and treaties of the United States, which

shall be legally brought within the cognizance and jurisdiction of 439, 410. any of the courts or judicial tribunals established under the Consti.

tution. It was intended to be a separate department of the

governmert, possessing all the "judicial power" of the national 97, 89, 40. government except upon the single jurisdiction of impeachment.

Not a power to control the other departments of the government in their official actions, but to act iudependently of them under the Coustitution and law's.

But the judicial power does not extend to all questions which arise under the Constitution, laws, and treaties, because mans of those aro political, and have to be solved by other departments of the government. Thus:

*. TREATIES."—Where the title property depended on the Has the question, whether the land was within a cession by treaty to tho judiciary Ünited States, after our government, legislative and executive. struction of had claimed jurisdiction over it, the courts must consider that all treaties, question as a political one, the decision of which having been made or what is

the rule ? in this manner, they must conform to it. (Foster v. Neilson. 2 Pet.

173, 24. 309: United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 711, 712; Garcia v. Lro, 12 Pet. 520, 521; Williamson v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pot. 441, 441. 920.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 56.

So the protection of the Indians in their possessions seems to be as to tho & political question. (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 20.) Id. Indians ?

So as to State boundaries, unless agreed to be settled, as a judicial State boun. question. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 736, 733; daries ! Garcia v. Lee. Id. 520.) Id. And they have agreod upon this

195. court to settle such questions. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12

274. Pet. 7:37. And so of foreign treaties, as to confiscations. (Barclay V. Russel, 3 Ves. 424, 434.) Id. And generally as to political treaties. (Carnatic v. The East India Company, 2 Ves. jr. 56.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 56. So as to which must be regarded as the rightful government abroad between two contending parties, as to revn. is never settled by the judiciary, but is left to the general govern.

lutions? ment. (The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 50; Williains v. Suffolk Ins. Co. 13 Pet. 419; Rose v. Himley, 4 Cr. 241; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 634; Gilston v. Hoyt, Id. 246; The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. 61.) Luther r. Borden, 7 How. 56, 57.

The same rule has been appiied in a contest as to which is the 233, 285. true Constitution, between two, or which possesses the true legis. lative power in one of our own states. (Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 314.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 57.

Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained

195. in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its coguizance. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall

. 500. CASE arises, within the meaning of the Constitution, Defino a whenever any question respecting the Constitution, laws, or treaties cise!

140, 141. of tile United States, has assumed such a form, that the judicial

198, 210 power is capable of acting on it. Osborn v. United St:ites Bank, 9 263, 264. Wh. 819; Jones v. Seward, 41 Barb. 272 ; Curtis' Corn $ 7; E.c 201. partc Villigan, 4 Wallace. 112, 114. Law, in this article, and Common Law, in the seventh amendment, mean the same thing; that is, not merely suits which the common law recognized among its old and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal rights were to be ascertained and determined in contradistinction to those where equitable rights are administered. (Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447.) Fenn v. Holmes, 21 How. 486 (cites Strother v. Lucas, 6 Pet. 768; Parish v. Ellis, 16 Pet. 453-1; and Bennett v. Butterworth, 11 How. 669). And see Sheirburne v. De Cordova, 24 How. 423. Or, where the proceeding is in the admiralty. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447; Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wh. 212. Thu

110.

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

case in

A case.

action of cjcctment, or trespass to try title, cannot be supported on the common-law side of the United States Court, upon the inchoate titles recognized by the State statutes. Fenn v. Holmes, 21 How. 481; Hooper v. Scheimer, 23 Id. 249; Sheirburne v. De Cordova, 24 Id. 423.

This class of cases is without reference to who are the parties. Curtis' Com. § 3-17. See Van Ness v. Packard, 2 Pet. 137, 144; Wheaton v. Peters. 8 Pet. 591; Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cr. 43; Town

of Pawlet v. Clarke, Id. 292. When con- But a

can only be considered when the subject is subsidered mitted to it by a party wlio asserts his rights in the form prescribed

by law. (Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wh. $19.) Curtis' Com. $ 7. And see Robinson v. Campbell, 2 Wb. 212, 221, 223; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 416, 447. That is, there must be : judicial proceeding. Curtis' Com. $ 10, 11; Osborn v. Bank United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 819, 821.

The record must show that the Constitution or some law or treaty was drawn in question. (Lawter v. Walker, 12 How. 149; Mills v. Brown, 16 Pet. 525.) Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 180.

And under the 25th section of the judiciary act, the decision must be against the validity of the act, treaty, or Constitution; not in

favor of it. Ryan v. Thomas, 4 Wall., 604. Define a 200. BY “CASES IN EQUITY," are to be understood suits in

which relief is sought according to the principles and practice of the equity ?

equity jurisdiction as established in English jurisprudence. Robin199.

son v. Campbell, 3 Wh. 222-3; United States v. Howlaud, 4 I. 108; Lanman v. Clark, 2 McLean, 570–1; Lanman v. Clark, 4 Id. 18; Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sumn. 401; Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mas.

95; Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curtis' C. C. 465. And see 1 Curtis' What is the Com. S 7-9. !9a-30. The true test of equity jurisdiction is. true test of whether there is a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law in equity juris- the same courts. diction?

United States v. Howland, 4 Wheat. 108; Boyce's Executors v. Grundy, 3 Pet. 210. 215; Gould v. Gould, 3 Story R. 516, 536; Gaines v. Chew, 2 How. 619, 645; Williams v. Benedict, 8 How. 107; Curtis' Com. § 23–38. Not according to the practice of the State courts, but the distinctions in England.

Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 222, 223, When does 201. A CASE is said to "ARISE" under the Constitution or laws

of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. Coheus v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 379. A bill in

equity to enforce a specitic performance of a contract to couvey a 108. patent, is not a case arisicg under the laws of the United States”

as to patents, so as alone to give jurisdiction to its Courts. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 W. & M. 34. A case in admiralty, is not a case arising under the Constitution, but the jurisdiction is as old as

admiralty itself. The Amer. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 545. This 255-259. article is reconcilable with the 5th amendment, and the several ju

diciary acts on the subject of trial by jury. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 444; Story's Const. § 1645; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 433, 437; S. C., 635, 640, 642.

A “CASE" is a controversy between parties which has taken a

2 case arise!

What is
A case ?

shapo for judicial decision. Marshall's speech, 5 Wheat. App. 16, 199. 17; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 819. A CASE is a suit in law or equity. instituted according to a regular course of judicial 121–p. 124. proceedings; and when it involves any question arising under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, it is within the judicial power confided to the Union. (See 1 Tuck. Black. Com. 418-420; Madison's Virginia resolutions and report, January, 1800, p. 8: Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 173, 174; Owing v. Norwood, 5 Cr. 341; 2 Elliot's Debates, 418, 419; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 301; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 378–392.) Story's Const. § 1647-1656. It consists of the right of the one party as well as the other. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379.

202, "IN ALL CASES AFFECTING AMBASSADORS, OTHER PUBLIC How are MINISTERS AND CONSULS.”—These classes are usually distinguished foreign in diplomacy:-1. AMBASSADORS, who are the highest order, who are tives classi. considered as personally representing their sovereigns; 2. Envoys fied ! EXTRAORDINARY AND MINISTERS PLENIPOTENTIARY; 3. MINISTERS 180, 181, 210. RESIDENT, AND MINISTERS CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES. Mere chargés d'affaires are deemed of still lower rank. Dr. Liebers Encyc. Am. 444, 445. Art. MINISTERS, FOREIGN: Vattel, B. 4 chap. 6, § 71-74. And see Schooner Exchange v. McFadden, 7 Cr. 116, 138; Story's Const. § 1658, 3d ed. 194. note ). Whatever their rank and grade public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. Id.

The federal courts have jurisdiction of all suits "affecting " Is it neces. public ministers, although they may not be parties to the record. sary they Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 854–5. See United States v. parties to Ortega, 11 Wh. 467; United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall; 297, S. C., 4 the record ? Wash. C. C. 531. The recognition of the executive of the United States is conclusive as to the public character of the party. Dupont v. Pichon, 4 Dall. 321; United States v. Ortega, 4 Wash. C. C. 531 : Curtis' Com. $ 31-35 ; Story's Const. § 1660-1662, notes to 3d ed.

203, “ ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION.”—The cases What is are :-). Captures made jure belli upen certain waters, and all admiralty

and mariquestions of prize and other incidents arising therefrom; 2.

time juris. Crimes and offenses against the laws of the United States com- diction : mitted upon the same waters; 3. Civil acts, torts, and injuries 110-116. committed upon the same waters not under claim or color of exercising the rights of wyr, as assaults and personal injuries; col. 446. lisions of ships, illegal seizures, or depredations upon property ; illegal dispossession of ships, seizures for breaches of revenue laws, and salvage services. Curtis' Com. § 37 ; and see same, $38-52; Marshall's Speech, 5 Wheat. App. 16; Martin v. Hun. ter, 1 Wheat. 335; Story's Const. § 1666, 1669, 3d ed., note 1; Abbott on Shipping, P. 2, chap. 4, pp. 132-138, and notes to American editions; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. XVII., pp. 312–352, and

But the torts must be upon the wavigable waters, and not partly on land. (Thomas v. Lane, 2 Sumner, 9; The Huntress, Davies, 85; United States v. McGill, 1 Wash. C. C. 463 ; s. C., 4 Dall. 346; Plumer v Webb, 4 Mas. 383, 384.) The Plymouth, 3 Wail. 333, 334.

notes.

« 이전계속 »