Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-State Courts. Interstate Commerce 1 Where Congress has legislated on a subject within its province, such as interstate commerce, its power as to such matter is exclusive, and the State courts have no jurisdiction thereof. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242. See also Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Abilene, etc., Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426. Southern R. Co. v. Reid, 222 U. S. 424. Mitchell, etc., Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247. American Exp. Co. v. Caldwell, 244 U. S. 617. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Stineman, 242 U. S. 298. Powers of Congress Judges This clause removes from Congress all control over the tenure of office of Federal judges, and precludes any diminution in their compensation during their term of office. Judges of inferior Federal courts established by Congress must be appointed to hold office during good behavior. The extra compensation received by a district judge holding court outside his own district is no part of his official salary. The fees allowed to justices of peace in the District of Columbia can not be diminished during their continuance in office. A person appointed to be a judge of a Territorial court is not contemplated by this clause, and hence the Constitution is not violated by a statute prescribing a fixed term of years for the office of such a judge or authorizing his displacement. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 49. U. S. v. Todd, 13 How. 52. note. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 546. A tax upon the net income of a United States district judge, assessed under the act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1062), by including his official salary in the computation, operates to diminish his compensation, and is therefore unconstitutional under this section. Evans v. Gore, 253 U. S. 245. Prescribing Rules of Decision The provisions of the act of July 12, 1870, attempting to change the effect of pardons held unconstitutional. 1 See also Commerce clause, p. 83. 12703°-S. Doc. 157, 68-1-31 Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Powers of Congress. U S. v. Klein, 13 Wall. 147. Prescribing Forms of Proceedings Congress possesses the sole right to say what shall be the forms of proceeding, either in equity or at law, in the courts of the United States, and in what cases an appeal shall be allowed or not. It is a matter of sound discretion, and to be exercised by Congress in such a manner as shall in its judgment best promote the public convenience and the true interests of the citizens. Ex parte New Orleans City Bank, 3 How. 317. The review of rulings of the trial court in a criminal case by an appeal taken under the Code of Laws of the District of Columbia, 1901, section 935, on behalf of the Government after acquittal, on which the court has no power to set aside the verdict, involves a determination of moot questions only, which is not a judicial function, and can not be required of a Federal court by Congress. U. S. v. Evans, 213 U. S. 297. Congress may alone determine the remedies which may be pursued for the enforcement of judgments in the Federal courts as well as the procedure to be adopted in the progress of the suit. Lamaster v. Keeler, 123 U. S. 376. Congress may prescribe the law of limitations for suits which may by law be removed into Federal courts, and when Congress has done so the law is binding on State and Federal courts. Arnson v. Murphy, 109 U. S. 238. Jenkins v. International Bank, 106 U. S. 571. Jenkins v. Lowenthal, 110 U. S. 222. Congress may confer upon the courts power to make alterations and additions in process as well as in modes of proceeding in suits. The power to alter and add to the process and modes of proceeding in a suit embraces the whole progress of such suit, and every transaction in it from its commencement to its termination, and until the judgment shall be satisfied. Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. 1. U. S. Bank v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. 51. U. S. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 98 U. S. 604. Providing for Appeals to Operate Retrospectively An act of Congress extending the remedy by appeal to the Supreme Court to act retrospectively is not invalid as an invasion of the judicial domain, and destructive of vested rights. Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 477. Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Powers of Congress. Prescribing Qualifications for Admission to the Bar Congress has not the right to prescribe qualifications of persons who desire admission to the bar of the national courts as attorneys. In re Shorter, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 12811, citing Ex parte Secombe, 19 Investigation of Affairs of Debtor of United States A resolution of the House of Representatives authorizing an investigation by the House into the affairs of a debtor of the United States was in excess of the powers conferred on that body by the Constitution. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U. S. 196. Authorizing Impeachment of Naturalization Certificates The act of Congress of June 29, 1906, in authorizing the impeachment of certificates of naturalization theretofore issued for fraud consisting in the introduction of perjured testimony is not unconstitutional as an exercise of judicial power by the legislative department. Johannessen v. U. S., 225 U. S. 227. Admission and Exclusion of Aliens The act of Congress of March 3, 1903, prohibiting the admission of aliens afflicted with a loathsome or with a dangerous contagious disease, and authorizing the Secretary of Commerce and Labor, upon a certificate of a medical inspector, to exact a penalty of $100 for each violation and to refuse clearance papers while such penalty remains unpaid, is not invalid as committing the collection of a penalty to an administrative officer without the necessity of resorting to the judicial power. Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320. Identification and Deportation of Aliens Congress has power to forbid aliens from coming within the borders of the United States, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons, and causing their deportation, upon executive or subordinate officials. Turner v. Williams, 194 U. S. 291. Power to Adjust Claims Under a Treaty A power to adjust claims under a treaty may be constitutionally conferred on the Secretary of the Treasury as well as on the commissioner, but such a power is not judicial in either case in the sense in which judicial power is granted by the Constitution to the courts of the United States. U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 48. Issue of Distress Warrant by Solicitor of Treasury The issue of a distress warrant by the Solicitor of the Treasury under an act of Congress entitled "An act providing for the better organization of the Treasury Department" was held not to Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Powers of Congress. be void as the exercise by an executive department of a judicial function. Murray v. Hoboken Land, etc., Co., 18 How. 272. See also Cruikshank v. Bidwell, 86 Fed. 7, decree denying motion for an injunction affirmed, as no tenable basis for equity interposition was shown, in 176 U. S. 73. Authorizing Administrative Officers to Enforce Penalties It is competent for Congress when legislating as to matters exclusively within its control to impose appropriate obligations and sanction their enforcement by reasonable money penalties, giving to executive officers the power to enforce such penalties without the necessity of invoking the judicial power. Oceanic Nav. Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 339. Origet v. Hedden, 155 U. S. 228. Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Pet. 499. Removal and Transfer of Causes Under this section Congress may provide for the transfer of a suit from one inferior tribunal to another and for the removal from State to Federal courts of causes to which the judicial power of the United States extends. This power is not to be found expressed in any grant to Congress; it is to be implied from the power of Congress to distribute the judicial power and affords an indirect means by which the Federal courts may acquire jurisdiction. Congress has no power, however, to remit to a special circuit court the business pending for trial before the State circuit court. The transfer of suits pending in a provisional court is also within the power of Congress. Stuart v. Laird, 1 Cranch, 309. Railroad Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270. U. S. v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 18. Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. 182. See also U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. 530. Freemont v. U. S., 17 How. 542. Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 252. Insurance Co. v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 226 The Grapeshot, 7 Wall. 563. Edwards v. Tanneret, 12 Wall. 449. A cause may be removed from a State to a Federal court where it arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as where it arises between citizens of different States, and it is for Congress to say at what time the right shall be invoked, and at what stage of the proceedings a case may be removed. Congress may authorize removal before or after judgment, and regulate the method, and may prescribe a rule of limitations for Sec. 1.--Distribution of Judicial Power-Powers of Congress. removal which shall be binding on both State and Federal courts. Boom Co. v. Patterson, 98 U. S. 406. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 350. A State can not forbid the removal of causes to the Federal courts. A statute prohibiting foreign corporations from doing business in the State without filing an agreement not to remove causes is void, and an agreement pursuant thereto is not binding. On the other hand, it has been held that as a State may prescribe any terms it sees fit upon which foreign corporations shall do business, and it may provide that in case such a corporation removes a cause to the Federal courts, the Secretary of State may revoke its license to do business. A statute requiring foreign corporations to submit to service of process may serve to give the proper State courts jurisdiction of foreign corporations. Parties to a suit can not, by agreement, oust the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, but the right of removal is inconsistent with the voluntary submission to a State court's jurisdiction, and the right may be waived by such submission. Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445. Doyle v. Continental Ins. Co., 94 U. S. 540. Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41. Manning v. Amy, 140 U. S. 141. Brooks v. Clark, 119 U. S. 513. See also Barron v. Burnside, 121 U. S. 200. Ducat v. Chicago, 10 Wall. 415. Martin v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 151 U. S. 689. The court held in The Alicia (7 Wall. 571) that it could not acquire jurisdiction of a prize cause through an order of a circuit court directing its transfer though authorized by express provision of an act of Congress, and that such provision must be regarded as an attempt, inadvertently made, to give the court a jurisdiction withheld by the Constitution. Section 2.-JURISDICTION. Clause 1.-EXTENT OF THE JUDICIAL POWER. 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 Con |