till then, the judicial power attaches to it. A case, then, in the sense of this clause of the Constitution, arises, when some subject, touching the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, is submitted to the court by a party, who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law. In other words, a case is a suit in law or equity, instituted according to the regular course of judicial proceedings; and, when it involves any question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, it is within the judicial power confided to the Union.

§317. Cases arising under the Constitution, as contradistinguished from those, arising under the laws of the United States, are such as arise from the powers conferred, or privileges granted, or rights claimed, or protection secured, or prohibitions contained, in the Constitution itself, independent of any particular statute enactment. Many cases of this sort may easily be enumerated. Thus, if a citizen of one State should be denied the privileges of a citizen in another State; if a State should coin money, or make paper money a tender; if a person, tried for a crime against the United States, should be denied a trial by jury, or a trial in the State, where the crime is charged to be committed; if a person, held to labor, or service, in one State, under the laws thereof, should escape into another, and there should be a refusal to deliver him up to the party, to whom such service or labor may be due; in these, and many other cases, the question, to be judicially decided, would be a case arising under the Constitution. On the other hand, cases arising under the laws of the United States, are such as grow out of the legislation of Congress, within the scope of their constitutional authority, whether they constitute the right, or privilege, or claim, or protection, or defence, of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they are asserted. The same reasoning applies to cases arising under treaties. Indeed, wherever, in a judicial proceeding, any question arises, touching the validity of a treaty, or statute, or authority, exercised under the United States, or touching the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or any statute,

of any statute, or authority exercised under any State, on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, it has been invariably held to be a case, to which the judicial power of the United States extends.

narrow.

$318. It has sometimes been suggested, that a case, to be within the purview of this clause, must be one, in which a party comes into court to demand something conferred on him by the Constitution, or a law, or a treaty, of the United States. But this construction is clearly too A case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution, or a law, or a treaty, of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. This is manifestly the construction given to the clause by Congress, by the 25th section of the Judiciary act, (which was almost contemporaneous with the Constitution,) and there is no reason to doubt its solidity or correctness. Indeed, the main object of this clause would be defeated by any narrower construction; since the power was conferred for the purpose, in an especial manner, of producing a uniformity of construction of the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States.

§ 319. Cases may also arise under laws of the United States by implication, as well as by express enactment; so that due redress may be administered by the judicial power of the United States. It is not unusual for a legislative act to involve consequences, which are not expressed. An officer, for example, is ordered to arrest an individual. It is not necessary, nor is it usual, to say, that he shall not be punished for obeying this order. His security is implied in the order itself. It is no unusual thing for an act of Congress to imply, without expressing, this very exemption from State control. The collectors of the revenue, the carriers of the mail, the mint establishment, and all those institutions, which are public in their nature, are examples in point. It has never been doubted, that all, who are employed in them, are protect

till then, the judicial power attaches to it. A case, then, in the sense of this clause of the Constitution, arises, when some subject, touching the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, is submitted to the court by a party, who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law. In other words, a case is a suit in law or equity, instituted according to the regular course of judicial proceedings; and, when it involves any question arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, it is within the judicial power confided to the Union.

§317. Cases arising under the Constitution, as contradistinguished from those, arising under the laws of the United States, are such as arise from the powers conferred, or privileges granted, or rights claimed, or protection secured, or prohibitions contained, in the Constitution itself, independent of any particular statute enactment. Many cases of this sort may easily be enumerated. Thus, if a citizen of one State should be denied the privileges of a citizen in another State; if a State should coin money, or make paper money a tender; if a person, tried for a crime against the United States, should be denied a trial by jury, or a trial in the State, where the crime is charged to be committed; if a person, held to labor, or service, in one State, under the laws thereof, should escape into another, and there should be a refusal to deliver him up to the party, to whom such service or labor may be due; in these, and many other cases, the question, to be judicially decided, would be a case arising under the Constitution. On the other hand, cases arising under the laws of the United States, are such as grow out of the legislation of Congress, within the scope of their constitutional authority, whether they constitute the right, or privilege, or claim, or protection, or defence, of the party, in whole or in part, by whom they are asserted. The same reasoning applies to cases arising under treaties. Indeed, wherever, in a judicial proceeding, any question arises, touching the validity of a treaty, or statute, or authority, exercised under the United States, or touching the construction of any clause of the Constitution, or any statute,

of any statute, or authority exercised under any State, on the ground of repugnancy to the Constitution, laws, or treaties, of the United States, it has been invariably held to be a case, to which the judicial power of the United States extends.

318. It has sometimes been suggested, that a case, to be within the purview of this clause, must be one, in which a party comes into court to demand something conferred on him by the Constitution, or a law, or a treaty, of the United States. But this construction is clearly too narrow. A case in law or equity consists of the right of the one party, as well as of the other, and may truly be said to arise under the Constitution, or a law, or a treaty, of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. This is manifestly the construction given to the clause by Congress, by the 25th section of the Judiciary act, (which was almost contemporaneous with the Constitution,) and there is no reason to doubt its solidity or correctness. Indeed, the main object of this clause would be defeated by any narrower construction; since the power was conferred for the purpose, in an especial manner, of producing a uniformity of construction of the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States.

His

§ 319. Cases may also arise under laws of the United States by implication, as well as by express enactment; so that due redress may be administered by the judicial power of the United States. It is not unusual for a legislative act to involve consequences, which are not expressed. An officer, for example, is ordered to arrest an individual. It is not necessary, nor is it usual, to say, that he shall not be punished for obeying this order. security is implied in the order itself. It is no unusual thing for an act of Congress to imply, without expressing, this very exemption from State control. The collectors of the revenue, the carriers of the mail, the mint establishment, and all those institutions, which are public in their nature, are examples in point. It has never been doubted, that all, who are employed in them, are protect

tion is not expressed in any act of Congress. It is incidental to, and is implied in, the several acts, by which those institutions are created; and it is secured to the individuals, employed in them, by the judicial power alone; that is, the judicial power is the instrument employed by the Government in administering this security.

§ 320. It has also been asked, and may again be asked, why the words, "cases in equity,' cases in equity," are found in this clause? What equitable causes can grow out of the Constitution, laws, and treaties, of the United States? To this, the general answer seems at once clear and satisfactory. There is hardly a subject of litigation between individuals, which may not involve those ingredients of fraud, accident, trust, or hardship, which would render the matter an object of equitable, rather than of legal, jurisdiction, as the distinction is known and established in several of the States. It is the peculiar province, for instance, of a court of equity, to relieve against what are called hard bargains. These are contracts, in which, though there may have been no direct fraud or deceit, sufficient to invalidate them in a court of law; yet there may have been some undue and unconscionable advantage taken of the necessities, or misfortunes, of one of the parties, which a court of equity would not tolerate. In such cases, where foreigners were concerned on either side, it would be impossible for the Federal judicatories to do justice, without an equitable, as well as a legal jurisdiction. Agreements to convey lands, claimed under the grants of different States, may afford another example of the necessity of an equitable jurisdiction in the Federal courts. This reasoning may not be so palpable in those States, where the formal and technical distinction between LAW and EQUITY is not maintained, as in other States, where it is exemplified by every day's practice.

§ 321. The next clause, extends the judicial power "to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls." The propriety of this delegation of power to the National Judiciary will scarcely be questioned by any persons, who have duly reflected upon