Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

British sub

the suit, unless the other party be a citizen. jects, born before the American Revolution, are to be deemed aliens; and may sue American citizens, born before the Revolution, as well as those born since that period. The Revolution severed the ties of allegiance; and made the inhabitants of each country aliens to each other. In relation to aliens, however, it should be stated, that they have a right to sue only, while peace exists between their country and our own. For, if a war break out, and they thereby become alien enemies, their right to sue is suspended, until the return of peace.

The

§ 352. We have now finished our review of all the classes of cases, to which the judicial power of the United States extends; and this review will (we trust) amply establish the reasonableness, the sound policy, and in many cases, the indispensable necessity, of confining this jurisdiction on the National Government. The next inquiry naturally presented, is in what mode this jurisdiction is to be exercised, and in what courts it is to be vested. next clause of the third article, answers the inquiry. is as follows: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those, in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the Congress shall make."

It

§ 353. By original jurisdiction, is here meant, that the party may commence his suit directly, and in the first instance, in the Supreme Court; by appellate jurisdiction is meant, a right to revise the decision or judgement, made by some other court, in which the suit has been instituted. For reasons of the highest public policy, original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court in cases, in which foreign nations and the States are concerned, as more appropriate to their dignity, and, under all circumstances, more fit to receive the decision of the highest tribunals. Other cases may conveniently be left to the inferior tribunals, and be brought by appeal for revision

it, leaving to Congress the authority to regulate the right of appeal, in the exercise of a sound discretion.

§354. There are some additional suggestions upon this clause, which may, perhaps, be useful to that class of readers who desire to comprehend the full force and operation of this clause, in its various practical bearings.*

§ 355. The first remark, arising out of this clause, is, that, as the judicial power of the United States extends to all the cases enumerated in the Constitution, it may extend to all such cases, in any form, in which judicial power may be exercised. It may, therefore, extend to them in the shape of original, or of appellate jurisdiction, or of both; for there is nothing in the nature of the cases, which binds to the exercise of the one in preference to the other. But it is clear, from the language of the Constitution, that, in one form or the other, it is absolutely obligatory upon Congress, to vest all the jurisdiction in the National courts, in that class of cases, at least, where it has declared, that it shall extend to "all cases."

§ 356. In the next place, the jurisdiction, which is by the Constitution to be exercised by the Supreme Court in an original form, is very limited, and extends only to cases affecting ambassadors, and other public ministers, and consuls, and cases, where a State is a party. And Congress cannot constitutionally confer on it any other, or further original jurisdiction. This is one of the appropriate illustrations of the rule, that the affirmation of a power in particular cases, excludes it in all others. The clause itself would otherwise be wholly inoperative and nugatory. If it had been intended to leave it to the discretion of Congress, to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts, according to the will of that body, it would have been useless to have proceeded further, than to define the judicial power, and the tribunals, in which it should be vested. Affirmative words often, in their operation, imply a negative of other objects, than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative, or exclusive sense, must be given to the words, or they have no oper

*The following sections of this chapter can be omitted by those, whose studies may not enable them fully to understand this compli

ation at all. If the solicitude of the Convention, respecting our peace with foreign powers, might induce a provision to be made, that the Supreme Court should have original jurisdiction in cases, which might be supposed to affect them; yet the clause would have proceeded no further, than to provide for such cases, unless some further restriction upon the powers of Congress had been intended. The direction, that the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, in all cases, with such exceptions, as Congress shall make, will be no restriction, unless the words are to be deemed exclusive of original jurisdiction. And accordingly, the doctrine is firmly established, that the Supreme Court cannot constitutionally exercise any original jurisdiction, except in the enumerated cases. If Congress should confer it, it would be a mere nullity.

§ 357. But, although the Supreme Court cannot exercise original jurisdiction, in any cases, except those specially enumerated, it is certainly competent for Congress to vest, in any inferior courts of the United States, original jurisdiction of all other cases, not thus specially assigned to the Supreme Court; for there is nothing in the Constitution, which excludes such inferior courts from the exercise of such original jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution gives a rule, is coextensive with the judicial power; and except, so far as the Constitution has made any distribution of it among the courts of the United States, it remains to be exercised in an original, or an appellate form, or in both, as Congress may, in their wisdom, deem fit. Now, the Constitution has made no distribution, except of the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It has nowhere insinuated, that the inferior tribunals shall have no original jurisdiction. It has nowhere affirmed, that they shall have appellate jurisdiction. Both are left unrestricted and undefined. Of course, as the judicial power is to be vested in the Supreme and inferior courts of the Union, both are under the entire control and regulation of Congress.

§ 358. Another question, of a very different nature, is, whether the Supreme Court can exercise appellate juris

delegated to it by the Constitution; in other words, whether the original jurisdiction excludes the appellate; and so, on the other hand, whether the latter implies a negative of the former. It has been said, that the very distinction, taken in the Constitution, between original and appellate jurisdiction, presupposes, that, where the one can be exercised, the other cannot. For example, since the original jurisdiction extends to cases, where a State is a party, this is the proper form, in which such cases are to be brought before the Supreme Court; and, therefore, a case, where a State is a party, cannot be brought before the Court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; for the affirmative here, as well as in the cases of original jurisdiction, includes a negative of the cases not enumerated.

§ 359. If the correctness of this reasoning were admitted, it would establish no more, than that the Supreme Court could not exercise appellate jurisdiction in cases, where a State is a party. But it would by no means establish the doctrine, that the judicial power of the United States did not extend, in an appellate form, to such cases. 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 jurisdicdiction. This results from the very nature of the delegation of the judicial power in the Constitution. It is delegated in the most general terms; and may, therefore, be exercised under the authority of Congress, under every variety of form of original and of appellate jurisdiction. There is nothing in the instrument, which restrains or limits the power; and it must, consequently, subsist in the utmost latitude, of which it is in its nature susceptible. The result, then, would be, that, if the appellate jurisdiction over cases, to which a State is a party, could not, according to the terms of the Constitution, be exercised by the Supreme Court, it might be exercised exclusively by an inferior tribunal. The soundness of any reasoning, which would lead us to such a conclusion, may well be questioned.

It proceeds upon the ground, that, because the character of the party alone, in some instances, entitles the Supreme Court to maintain original jurisdiction, without any reference to the nature of the case, therefore, the character of the case, which in other instances is made the very foundation of appellate jurisdiction, cannot attach. Now, that is the very point of controversy. It is not only not admitted, but it is solemnly denied. The argument might just as well, and with quite as much force, be pressed in the opposite direction. It night be said, that the appellate jurisdiction is expressly extended by the Constitution to all cases in law and equity, arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, and, therefore, in no such cases could the Supreme Court exercise original jurisdiction, even though a State were a party.

§361. The next inquiry is, whether the eleventh amendment to the Constitution has effected any change of the jurisdiction, thus confided to the judicial power of the United States. The words of the amendment, are, "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the States, by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." It is a part of our history, that, at the adoption of the Constitution, all the States were greatly indebted ; and the apprehension, that these debts might be prosecuted in the National courts, formed a very serious objection to that instrument. Suits were instituted; and the Supreme Court maintained its jurisdiction. The alarm was general; and, to quiet the apprehensions, that were so extensively entertained, this amendment was proposed in Congress, and adopted by the State Legislatures. That its motive was not to maintain the sovereignty of a State from the degradation, supposed to attend a compulsory appearance before the tribunal of the Nation, may be inferred from the terms of the amendment. It does not comprehend controversies between two or more States, or between a State and a foreign state. The jurisdiction of the Court still extends to these cases; and in these, a State may

[graphic]
« AnteriorContinuar »