1817

Stephen J. Field, California.....1863-..

Efforts were made at the Supreme Court clerk's office, and at the State Department, to obtain 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 compensa. Dig. 819. The District Judges' salaries vary from three thousand five hundred dollars to five thousand five hundred dollars.

tion?

426.

This compensation prohibits the imposition of a tax upon a Can it be judge's salary. Commonwealth v. Mann, 5 W. & S. 415. Congress taxed? may give the 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.

To what does the judicial power extend?

199-200.

439-455.

Distinguish

tive power?

14. 71. 185, 165, 211.

And see United States V. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336. When the Act of Congress directs the transfer of the case. we 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 v. Hunter, 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, see 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. 325. 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 subsequent proceedings in the State courts are illegal. Gordon v. Longest, 16 Pet. 97; 1 Kent's Com. 295.

SEC. II.-[1.] The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, 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.

199. JUDICIAL POWER. as contradistinguished from legislative the judicial power and executive power, is the power to hear and determine from legisla- all the cases of law and fact, which arise between the government and parties, or between parties, under this Constitution, the law of nations, and the laws and treaties of the United States, which shall be legally brought within the cognizance and jurisdiction of any of the courts or judicial tribunals established under the Consti. tution. It was intended to be a separate department of the government, possessing all the "judicial power" of the national 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 independently of them under the Constitution and laws.

439, 440.

'7, 89, 40.

253.

But the judicial power does not extend to all questions which arise under the Constitution, laws, and treaties, because many of

these are political, and have to be solved by other departments of the government. Thus:

the con

“TREATIES.”—Where the title to property depended on the Has the question, whether the land was within a cession by treaty to the judiciary United 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 in this manner, they must conform to it. (Foster v. Neilson. 2 Pet. 309: United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 711, 712; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 520, 521; Williamson v. Suffolk Ins. Co., 13 Pot. 441, 920.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 56.

the rule?

178, 24.

441.

91-92.

195.

274.

So the protection of the Indians in their possessions seems to be As to the a 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, 738; daries? Garcia v. Lee. Id. 520.) Id. And they have agreed upon this court to settle such questions. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 737. 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 revo is never settled by the judiciary, but is left to the general govern- lutions? ment. (The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 50; Williams v. Suffolk Ins. Co. 13 Pet. 419; Rose v. Himley, Cr. 241; United States v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 634; Gilston v. Hoyt, Id. 246; The Divina Pastora, 4 Wheat. 64.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 56, 57. The same rule has been applied in a contest as to which is the 233, 285. true Constitution, between two, or which possesses the true legislative power in one of our own States. (Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 374.) Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 57.

Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department; though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 500.

110.

195.

140, 141.

A CASE arises, within the meaning of the Constitution, Define a whenever any question respecting the Constitution, laws, or treaties case? of the United States, has assumed such a form, that the judicial 198, 210. power is capable of acting on it. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 263, 264. Wh. 819; Jones v. Seward, 41 Barb. 272; Curtis' Com § 7; Ec 201. parte Milligan, 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. 453-4; 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. The

A case.

When considered?

Define a case in equity? 199.

action of ejectment, 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.

But a "CASE" can only be considered when the subject is submitted to it by a party who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law. (Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wh. 819.) Curtis' Com. § 7. And see Robinson v. Campbell, 2 Wh. 212, 221, 223; Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 446, 447. That is, there must be a judicial proceeding. Curtis' Com. § 10, 11; Osborn v. Bank of 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.

200. BY "CASES IN EQUITY," are to be understood suits in which relief is sought according to the principles and practice of the equity jurisdiction as established in English jurisprudence. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wh. 222-3; United States v. Howland, 4 Id. 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. § 7-9. 19a-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. 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.

diction?

When does

a case arise?

108.

255-259.

What is
A case?

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. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 379. A bill in equity to enforce a specific performance of a contract to convey a patent, is not a "case arising 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 article is reconcilable with the 5th amendment, and the several judiciary 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

199.

shape for judicial decision. Marshall's speech, 5 Wheat. App. 16, 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. 28: Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137, 173, 174; Owing v. Norwood, 5 Cr. 344; 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.

representa

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 classiconsidered as personally representing their sovereigns; 2. ENVOYS fled? 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. 494. note 1. Whatever their rank and grade public ministers of every class are the immediate representatives of their sovereigns. Id.

should be

The federal courts have jurisdiction of all suits "affecting" Is it necespublic 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.

446.

203. "ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION."-The cases What is are:-1. Captures made jure belli upon certain waters. and all admiralty and mariquestions of prize and other incidents arising therefrom; 2.5 time jurisCrimes 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 war, as assaults and personal injuries; collisions 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. Hunter. 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. 342-352, and notes. But the torts must be upon the navigable 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; 8. C., 4 Dall. 346; Plumer v Webb, 4 Mas. 383, 384.) The Plymouth, 3 Wail. 333, 334.