ments to the record (Ex parte Many, 14 How. 24); or where he refuses to allow double pleas (Ex parte Davenport, 6 Peters, 661); or where he refuses to quash a writ of execution (Ex parte Flippen, 94 U. S. 348); or if he refuses to discharge defendant from arrest on bail for a different amount (Ex parte Taylor, 14 How. 3); or to compel a judge to proceed according to the rules of chancery practice (Ex parte Whitney, 13 Peters, 404); or to compel him to issue execution, although he refuses to do so (Ransom v. New York, 20 How. 581); or to control his discretion in granting or refusing a new trial (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Peters, 291; Ex parte Bradstreet, 8 Peters, 588); or if he refuses to issue a warrant for a deserter because he does not think the evidence sufficient. (U. S. v. Lawrence, 3 Dall. 45.) The judgment of the circuit court upon a plea to the jurisdiction will not be reviewed on a petition for mandamus. (Ex parte Railway Co., 103 U. S. 794.) This court cannot by mandamus compel an inferior court to reverse its decision. (Ex parte Burtis, 103 U. S. 238.) That mandamus will not issue to control judicial discretion. (Ex parte Milwaukee, etc. R. Co., 5 Wall. 188; Ex parte Hoard, 105 U. S. 578; Ex parte Virgin a ("Virginia v. Rives") 100 U. S. 313; Ex parte Sawyer, 21 Wall. 235; Ex parte Denver, etc. R. Co., 101 U. S. 711.) § 204. Issues of fact.—The trial of issues of fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at law against citizens of the United States shall be by jury. (Rev. Stats. sec. 689.) $ 205. Appellate jurisdiction.-The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in the cases hereinafter specially provided for. (Rev. Stats. sec. 690.) Note. See U. S. Const., art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2; Wales v. Whitney, 114 U. S. 564. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution, but they are limited and regulated by statute. (Durosseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch, 307.) Congress has described the jurisdiction, and this description implies a negative to the exercise of such appellate power is not comprehended within it. (Durousseau v. U. S., 6 Cranch. 314; U. S. v. Young, 94 U. S. 259; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 251; Railroad Co. v. Grant, 98 U. S. 401.) Appellate jurisdiction.-In every case to which the judicial power extends, and in which original jurisdiction is not given, the Supreme Court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 252; Ex parte Yerger, 8 Wall. 98; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304.) Where original jurisdiction is founded on the character of the parties, the judicial power cannot be exercised in its appellate form (Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat, 738); but where it is founded on the nature of the controversy the appellate jurisdiction attaches. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohen v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is, that it raises and corrects pro eedings in a cause already instituted. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137.) In prize cases the Supreme Court can exercise appellate jurisdiction only. (The Alicia, 7 Wall. 571.) The appellate power is not limited to any particular courts. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; 3 Wis. 1; Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 176; Piqua Bank v. Knoup, 6 Ohio St. 342; 16 How. 369.) It may be exercised over territorial courts (Benner v. Porter, 9 How. 244; Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589; Freeborn v. Smith, 2 Wall. 173), but not without legislation by Congress (McNulty v. Batty, 10 How. 79), or over State courts on questions involving the constitutionality of legal enactments. (Bridge Prop. v. Hoboken etc. Co., 1 Wall. 116; Furman v. Nichol, 8 Wall. 57; Delmas v. Ins. Co. 14 Wall. 667; Home Ins. Co. v. Augusta, 93 U. S. 116; Ferris v. Coover, 11 Cal. 176; but see Johnson v. Gordon, 4 Cal. 368.) But it cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction over the court of claims (Gordon v. U. S., 2 Wall. 561), nor can Congress grant appellate jurisdiction on the inferior courts from the decisions of the State courts. (Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323; Wetherbee v. Johnson, 14 Mass. 412.) The principle on which appellate jurisdiction from State 1 of one of the States composing the confederacy is a statute of such State, as to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over judgments and decrees in State courts. (Ford v. Surget, 97 U. S. 594; Williams v. Bruffy, 96 U. S. 176.) § 206. Appeals from district and circuit courts.-Hereafter, all appeals by writ of error or otherwise from said district courts shall only be subject to review in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in the circuit court of appeals hereby established, as is hereinafter provided, and the review, by appeal, by writ of error, or otherwise, from the existing circuit courts shall be had only in the Supreme Court of the United States, or in the circuit courts of appeals hereby established according to the provisions of this act regulating the same. (26 U. S. Stats. sec. 2734.) § 207. Appeals direct to Supreme Court from district and circuit courts.— Appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district courts, or from the existing circuit courts direct to the Supreme Court in the following cases: In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision. From the final sentences and decrees in prize causes. In cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime. In any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority is drawn in question. In any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States. Nothing in this act shall affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases appealed from the highest court of a State, nor the construction of the statute providing for review of such cases. (Act of March 3, 1891, 26 U. S. Stats. 827, sec. 5.) § 208. From Indian Territory.-Appeals and writs of error may be taken and prosecuted from the decision of the United States courts in the Indian Territory to the Supreme Court of the United States, or to the circuit court of appeals in the eighth circuit, in the same manner and under the same regulations as from the circuit or district courts of the United States, under this act. (26 U. S. Stats. 829, sec. 13.) § 209. Appeals in prize causes.-An appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court from all final decrees of any district court in prize causes, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of two thousand dollars; and shall be allowed, without reference to the value of the matter in dispute, on the certificate of the district judge that the adjudication involves a question of general importance. And the Supreme Court shall receive, hear, and determine such appeals, and shall always be open for the entry thereof. (Rev. Stats. sec. 695.) [See sec. 1009.] Appeals in prize cases.-A new claim cannot be introduced in the Supreme Court, but may be filed in the circuit court when the cause is remanded. (The Societe, 9 Cranch. 209; The Harrison, 2 Wheat. 298.) Where the |