« AnteriorContinuar »
to be paid out of the proceeds of a one-per-cent. ad valorem tax. This was held not to impair the obligation of previously issued bonds in the hands of creditors though payable from the same tax.
“Although the United States Supreme Court exercises an independent judgment in determining whether a State law impairs contract obligations, yet when the contract arises from a State statute, the Supreme Court will, for the sake of harmony and to avoid confusion, lean towards an agreement of views with the State courts," where the question seems balanced with doubt. Board of Liquidation, etc., v. Louisiana, 21 S. C. Reporter, 263.
Extradition to foreign countries of persons accused of crime.—Cuba is, under present conditions, a foreign territory, within the Act of Congress providing for the extradition of persons violating foreign laws of a territory under occupation or control of the United States.
The fundamental guaranties of life, liberty and property embodied in the Constitution have no relation to crimes committed outside of the jurisdiction of the United States against the laws of a foreign country. Neely v. Henkel, 21 S. C. Reporter, 302.
The court takes judicial notice that Cuba was at the date of the Act of June 6, 1900 (providing for the extradition of persons charged with crimes against Cuba), and still is occupied by the United States and under their control. Such control and occupancy can not be deemed unconstitutional or an unauthorized interference with the internal affairs of a friendly power, under the circumstances existing in Cuba. It is noi competent for the judiciary to make any declaration as to the length of time such occupancy can continue, as that is purely a political question. Neely v. Henkel, id.
Ex post facto law.-A State statute of 1887, providing a heavier punishment for a person who had twice been convicted of a crime, and sentenced and convicted, keld not ex post facto where he had twice been convicted be fore he was convicted under the statute. He was not punished for first crimes but for the one last committed. McDonald v. Moss, 21 S. C. Reporter, 389.
A degree annulling the charter of a corporation and enjoining its officers from acting as a corporation because of the illegality of its object does not take away property without due process of law. New Orleans Debenture Co. v. State of La., 211 U. S. C. Rep., 384. NOTE.—Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. This case, in the foregoing annotation, is cited only to the point of the jurisdiction of the Court, as that was the point on which the case was dismissed. It is really a most important exposition of the Constitution. The facts are these: As President Adams' term was about to expire he appointed Marbury, with others, as justice of the peace of the District of Columbia, and the senate confirmed him. The commission was made out, signed and sealed and was ready for delivery, when President Jefferson assumed the office of President. He decided that the appointment was not complete until the delivery of the commission, and directed Mr. Madison, his Secretary of State, not to deliver the commission. Marbury applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to compel the delivery. In an opinion, regarded as one of the ablest Chief Justice Marshall delivered, he, with the concurrence of the Court, laid down the following propositions:
1. Marbury's appointment was complete and vested in him the title to and legal right to exercise the office.
2. That mandamus was the proper remedy, and might issue from a court of competent jurisdiction to compel the Secretary of State to deliver the commission. This proposition that the executive and ministerial officers of the United States may be compelled by the courts to perform any plain, specific, legal duty has been accepted as the law of the land.
3. That the President is by the Constitution invested with certain important political powers and in their exercise uses his own discretion, and appoints officers to aid him who acts by his authority and conform to his orders, and their acts are his acts and not examinable by the courts.
4. But when the legislature imposes upon those officers appointed by the President other duties on which the rights of individuals are dependent, he is an officer of the law, amenable to the law for his conduct. So far as the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the President, so far their acts are only politically and not judicially examinable. Where specific duties are assigned by law, on which individual rights depend, a person aggrieved may apply to the courts for a remedy.
5. But original jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandamus in such a case is not conferred on the Supreme Court.
6. The 13th section of the Judiciary Act (1 Stats. at Large, 81) which attempts to confer on the Supreme Court power to issue writs of mandamus, in classes of cases of original jurisdiction, is imperative and void, as it contravenes the Constitution the Congress can not enlarge the jurisdiction of the court.
7. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is void.
As the Court decided against its jurisdiction the case was dismissed, but the principles enunciated have ever since been regarded as sound and recognized as law and repeatedly followed. See, Notes of Decisions of Supreme Court.
same held valid .........
and commission same ..........
Tamid..... 120 - ;