Imágenes de páginas

seeks redress, under this clause, in the Supreme Court of the United States.

So if he held a commission under the United States and it gave him certain power, and he exercised that power, and was sued in the State court and there his commission was held invalid, he might be greatly oppressed and the authority of the United States overridden, unless the Supreme Court could review the adverse State decision and uphold his right. See Gould & Tucker's Notes, pp. 180–184.

But the question must be a Federal question, that is, it must raise some one of these questions specified in the statute above quoted. The Supreme Court can not review questions of mere general law. United States v. Thompson, 93 U. S., 586; Bank v. McVeigh, 98 U. S., 332; Allen v. McVeigh, 107 id., 433. Nor can the Supreme Court thus review questions of local law, not raising a Federal question. Poppe v. Langford, 104 U. S., 770. No Federal question is raised when the State court decides that a law of the State is contrary to the State Constitution, unless it also appears to be against the Federal Constitution. Withers v. Buckley, 20 How., 84; Medbery v. Ohio, 20 Ohio, 24 How., 413; Porter v. Foley, 24 How., 415; Salomons v. Graham, 15 Wall., 208; Hart v. Lampshire, 3 Pet., 280; Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet., 88; Mitchell v. Clark, 110 U. S., 633; West Tenn. Bank v. Citizens' Bank, 13 Wall., 432; Mitchell v. Lenox, 14 Pet., 49. See Gould & Tucker's Notes, pp. 179, 183; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 U. S., 361; Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S., 658, 666;. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Fitzgerald, 160 U. S., 556; Osborne v. Florida, 164 U. S., 650; Wade v. Lawder, 165 U. S., 624.

Territorial courts. These courts are created by Congress, under the power to make all needful rules and regulations. They are not courts of the United States. Am. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet., 511; Benner v. Porter, 9 How., 235; Forsyth v. United States, 9 How., 571; Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall., 434; Hornbuckle v. Toombs, 18 Wall., 648; Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S., 145; Good v. Martin, 95 U. S., 90. Their judges are not judges of the courts of the United States. Id.


SECTION 3. "Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

"The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained.”

What is treason?—There must be an actual assemblage of men for the treasonable purpose, to constitute levying war. A mere conspiracy or the enlistment of men is not sufficient. Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 75. But when enemies are at war with the United States, the enlisting or procuring enlistments for the enemy's service is treason. Respublica v. M'Carty, 2 Dall., 86. Nothing will excuse joining the enemy but the fear of present death. Id. Fear of loss of property or its destruction, or of slight or remote injury to the person will not excuse (United States v. Vigol, 2 Dall., 346), nor will drunkenness. Respublica v. Weidle, 2 Dall., 88. It is treason to suppress by armed force the officer of excise and to render nugatory the laws of Congress. U. S. v. Vigol, 2 Dall., 346; U. S. v. Mitchell, 2 Dall., 348.

Who may be guilty of treason.—Only a citizen can be guilty of high treason. United States v. Villato, 2 Dall., 370. It is a breach of allegiance and can be committed only by one owing allegiance either permanent or temporary. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat., 76, 97.

Aliens domiciled in the United States owe a local and temporary allegiance to the government of the United States, and are equally amenable with citizens for infraction of the laws, except such as relate immediately to citizenship, while they reside within the United States. For selling salt petre to the Confederate States knowing that it was to be used in the manufacture of gun powder, they were amenable for treason

in giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall., 147.



SECTION 1. "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

When full faith and credit to be given.—This rule applies to courts only so far as they have jurisdiction. Lacking that the record is not entitled to credit (Pub. Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall., 521) and does not prevent an inquiry into the jurisdiction. Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall., 457.

The record may be contradicted by proving the facts therein stated or recited to show jurisdiction to be false. Id. Want of jurisdiction may be shown either of the subject matter, the person or the rem. Id. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How., 165; Knowles v. Gas Light Coke Co., 19 Wall., 58; Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S., 160.

In an action on a judgment rendered in another State, the defendant, notwithstanding the record shows a return of a sheriff that he was personally served with

process, may show the contrary to defeat jurisdiction. Knowles v. Gas Light and Coke Co., 19 Wall., 58.

A judgment obtained against a non-resident joint debtor, without notice to him, is entitled to no faith and credit out of the jurisdiction where rendered. D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How., 165.

Under this clause and R. S., Sec. 905, a judgment recovered in one State against two joint defendants, only one of whom has been duly served with summons, and which is valid and enforcible by the law of that State against the former alone, will support an action against the one so served in another State. Hanley v. Donoghue, 116 U. S., 1; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S., 277.

In a personal action brought in a State against a corporation that is not incorporated there, nor does business nor has an agent or property in such State, a judgment rendered can not be recognized as valid in any other State; even though the summons were served on the President while temporarily in such State. Goldey v. Morning News, 156 U. S., 518.

The tribunals of one State have no jurisdiction over persons of other States unless found within their territorial limits. Galpin v. Page, 18 Wall., 350.

The partner, not residing in the State where the firm is sued, is not personally bound by the judgment recove ered in that State, when he is not served, though after dissolution other partners did appear and entered ap

« AnteriorContinuar »