Sec. -Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power troversies 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 Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. Leading Cases Chisholm v. Georgia (2 Dall. 419), being a suit by a citizen of South Carolina against the State of Georgia, out of which grew the eleventh amendment, and in connection with which see Poindexter v. Greenhow, 114 U. S. 270. Reagan v. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co., 154 U. S. 362. Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466. Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123. Hopkins v. Clemson College, 221 U. S. 636. Lankford v. Platte Iron Works, 235 U. S. 461. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1. Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheat. 264), in connection with which see Martin v. Hunter (1 Wheat. 304), upholding the constitutionality of sec. 25 of the judiciary act of 1789. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (5 Pet. 1), holding (p. 20) that "an Indian tribe or nation within the United States is not a foreign State, in the sense of the Constitution, and can not maintain an action in the courts of the United States." In connection with this case, see also Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515. Luther v. Borden (7 How. 1), in which the court refused to express an opinion on political questions, and holding that when the President had recognized one of two opposing factions as the lawful State government in a case of domestic violence, his decision would not be questioned by the courts. The law governing suits between States is fully discussed in Kansas v. Colorado (185 U. S. 125; 206 U. S. 46). South Dakota v. North Carolina (192 U. S. 286) being a suit to compel payment of bonds, and in which a decree was entered ordering the payment thereof; Justices White, Fuller, McKenna, and Day dissenting. As to suits between States relating to boundary disputes, see- New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 284. Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660. Florida v. Georgia, 11 How. 293; 17 How. 478. Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39. Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158. Cl. 1.-Extent of Power For a suit involving a pecuniary demand, see— Virginia v. West Virginia, 206 U. S. 290; 209 U. S. 514; 220 U. S. 1; 234 U. S. 117; 238 U. S. 202; 246 U. S. 565. While the language of the Constitution conferring upon the Federal courts jurisdiction over suits between States is qualified, it has been held that not all controversies between States are justiciable in their nature. Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U. S. 265. Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1. In suits between States it must appear that the plaintiff State is not a mere cloak for the real party in interest. New Hampshire v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76. But a State may sue when the interest involved is that of a considerable number of its citizens rather than that of the State itself. Missouri v. Ilinois & Chicago Dist., 180 U. S. 208. As to suits by the United States against a State, see U. S. v. North Carolina, 136 U. S. 211. U. S. v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621. U. S. v. Michigan, 190 U. S. 379. As to suits by a State against the United States, see U. S. v. Lee, 106 U. S. 196. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373. Oregon v. Hitchcock, 202 U. S. 60. Kansas v. U. S., 204 U. S. 331. In General This clause enables the judicial department to receive jurisdiction to the full extent of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. When any question respecting them is submitted by a party who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law, it then becomes a "case" of which the Federal courts have cognizance. "Shall extend" is used in an imperative sense and imports an absolute grant of power. In thus defining the judicial power the Constitution contemplates the cases enumerated as being in three distinct classes. In the latter class, as to controversies, Congress may qualify the jurisdiction, either original or appellate, and the grant of jurisdiction over one of the classes does not confer any jurisdiction over either of the other two. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 279. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. Cl. 1.-Extent of Power Congress is empowered to give the Federal courts jurisdiction over every case wherein a question within the judicial power is an ingredient. The questions involved in a case must determine its character in this respect; and if there are such as to bring the case within the judicial power, it is immaterial that other questions of law or fact are involved. So the judicial power extends to the trial of a revenue officer for an act done in the discharge of his duty; to a suit involving the rights of a railroad company as a corporation of the United States; to a suit by or against a national bank. In all such cases jurisdiction of the Federal courts may be made exclusive at the will of Congress. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 823. Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 264. Roberts v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 158 U. S. 22. Petri v. Commercial Bank, 142 U. S. 648. Ex parte Jones, 164 U. S. 692. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 337. The Glide, 167 U. S. 615. The judicial power is the instrument provided for administering security to an officer acting in the discharge of his duty; the power to declare what the law is. It covers every legislative act of Congress and is the final arbiter in matters involving the construction of the Constitution, and the Federal courts may be given by Congress power to construe every law with reference to its validity under the Constitution. Hodgson v. Millward, 3 Grant's Cases (Pa.) 412. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall, 514. Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506. Van Horne v. Dorrance, 2 Dall. 304. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264. Smith v. Adams, 130 U. S. 174. I. C. C. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 475. The jurisdiction of the Federal courts is exclusive over questions arising under treaties, where such questions are not political. As between the legislative and judiciary departments, however, so far as the provisions of a treaty can become the subject of judicial cognizance, they are subject to acts of Congress passed for their enforcement, modification, or repeal. Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. 89. Head Money Cases, 112 U. S. 580. A court of the United States sitting as a court of equity is without jurisdiction of a suit to enjoin the prosecution of a proceeding to remove a State official from office. Walton v. House of Representatives, 265 U. S. 487. Definition Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the subject matter in controversy between the parties to a suit; to adjudicate or exercise judicial power over it. It has reference to the Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power court's power over the parties; over the subject matter; over the property in contest; and to its authority to render judgment. An affirmative description of jurisdiction implies a negative on the exercise of power not comprehended within it. How jurisdiction shall be acquired, whether original or appellate, and the mode of procedure are left to the wisdom of the legislature; so Congress may give the Federal courts original jurisdiction in any case to which appellate jurisdiction extends, and may invest inferior Federal courts with jurisdiction over matters in which the Supreme Court has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction, and lawfully provide for suits, at the option of the parties, on all controversies between citizens of different States. U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 718. Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 514. Windsor v. McVeigh, 93 U. S. 274. Overby v. Gordon, 177 U. S. 220. Cooper v. Reynolds, 10 Wall. 316. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 173. National Exch. Bank v. Peters, 144 U. S. 570. Mayor v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 247. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 469. Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 18. Exercise of Jurisdiction as Dependent on Statutes Supreme Court.-The Supreme Court alone possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power can not deprive it. Stevenson v. Fain, 195 U. S. 167. Inferior courts.-The primary source of jurisdiction in the Federal courts is found in the Constitution, but it is directly conferred through the medium of Congress by grants thereof, and is conferred with such limitations and exceptions as the Congress shall prescribe when creating the courts and defining their authority. Bankers Trust Co. v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 241 U. S. 295. U. S. v. Eckford, 6 Wall. 488. Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260 U. S. 226. The jurisdiction of the circuit court is prescribed by laws enacted by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution and the Supreme Court by its rules has no power to increase or diminish the jurisdiction thus created though it may regulate its exercise in any manner not inconsistent with the laws of the United States. Venner v. Great Northern R. Co., 209 U. S. 35. See also Turner v. Bank, 4 Dall. 10. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 448. Sec. 2.-Jurisdiction Cl. 1.-Extent of Power Succession of courts for original and appellate jurisdiction The exercise of appellate jurisdiction is far from being limited by the terms of the Constitution to the Supreme Court. There can be no doubt that Congress may create a succession of inferior tribunals, in each of which it may vest appellate as well as original jurisdiction. The judicial power is delegated by the Constitution in the most general terms, and may, therefore, be exercised by Congress under every variety of form of appellate or original jurisdiction. And as there is nothing in the Constitution which restrains or limits this power, it must therefore, in all other cases, subsist in the utmost latitude of which, in its own nature, it is susceptible. See also Insurance Company v. Dunn, 19 Wall. 226. Power to suspend sentence.-An order suspending during good behavior the execution of a sentence to imprisonment, in a case in which the sentence imposed is the minimum prescribed by statute for the offense charged, amounts to a refusal by the judicial power to perform a duty resting upon it and to an interference with both the legislative and executive authority as fixed by the Constitution. Ex parte United States, 242 U. S. 27. Jurisdiction not extended beyond limits of Constitution.-An act of Congress can not extend the jurisdiction beyond the limits of the Constitution, and a statute giving jurisdiction to the circuit courts in all suits in which an alien is a party is invalid. Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch 303. Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cranch 348. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 401. Mandamus.-Congress has power to authorize a circuit court to issue a mandamus in an original proceeding. Knapp v. Lake Shore, etc., R. Co., 197 U. S. 542. Kendall v. U. S., 12 Pet. 618. McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch 504. A circuit court of the United States has not the power to issue a writ commanding the Secretary of the Treasury to pay a territorial judge his salary for the unexpired term of his office from which he had been removed. U. S. v. Guthrie, 17 How. 284. Though the relief sought concerns an alleged right secured by the Constitution, a circuit court of the United States has no jurisdiction in original cases of mandamus until Congress shall otherwise provide. Covington, etc., Brdg. Co. v. Hager, 203 U. S. 109. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 478. Cases and Controversies In order that the judicial power may extend to a case arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States or a treaty, |