SEC. 684. Terms.-The Supreme Court shall hold, at the seat of Government, one term annually, commencing on the second Monday in October, and such adjourned or special terms as it may find necessary for the dispatch of business; and suits, proceedings, recognizances, and processes pending in or returnable to said court shall be tried, heard, and proceeded with as if the time of holding said sessions had not been hereby altered.

23 July, 1866, c. 210, s. 1, v. 14, p. 209; 24 Jan., 1873, c. 64, v. 17, p. 419. SEO. 685. Adjournments for want of a quorum.—If, at any sesssion of the Supreme Court, a quorum does not attend on the day appointed for holding it, the justices who do attend may adjourn the court from day to day for twenty days after said appointed time, unless there be sooner a quorum. If a quorum does not attend within said twenty days, the business of the court shall be continued over till the next appointed session; and if, during a term, after a quorum has assembled, less than that number attend on any day, the justices attending may adjourn the court from day to day until there is a quorum, or may adjourn without day.

29 April, 1802, c. 31, s. 1, v. 2, p. 156; 21 Jan., 1829, c. 12, ss. 1, 2, v. 4, p. 332.

SEC. 686. Preparatory orders made by less than a quorum.--The justices attending at any term when less than a quorum is present, may, within the twenty days mentioned in the preceding section, make all necessary orders touching any suit, proceeding, or process, depending in or returned to the court, preparatory to the hearing, trial, or decision thereof. 29 April, 1802, c. 31, s. 1, v. 2, p. 156; 21 Jan., 1829, c. 12, s. 1, v. 323; 23 July, 1866, c. 210, s. 1, v. 14, p. 209,

4, p.

SEC. 687. Original jurisdiction.-The Supreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter cases it shall have original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction. And it shall have exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against embassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of

nations; and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits brought by embassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul is a party. [See § § 4063-4066.]

24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 13, v. 1, p. 80.

The State must be a substantial party on the record.-It is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, that a State may be consequentially affected by the matter in controversy, in a suit between individuals; but the State must be nominally or substantially a party to the suit on the record. Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall., 411; Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet., 110. If the State be not necessarily a defendant the circuit courts may take cognizance of the case if the circumstances authorize it. United States v. Peters, 5 Cr., 115.

And the fact that a State is one of the corporators in a private corporation, does not prevent the circuit courts from entertaining jurisdiction; and, the provision of the amendment to the Constitution which restrains the jurisdiction of the federal courts over suits against States, is limited to those suits in which the State is a party on the record. The Bank of the United States v. The Planters' Bank, 9 Wh., 904; Bank of Kentucky v. Wister, 2 Pet., 321; State of New York v. State of Connecticut, 4 Dall., 1; Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet., 110, where it was held, that in all cases where the jurisdiction depends upon the party, it is the party named in the record; and that where the governor of a State is sued in his style of office, and the claim made upon him is entirely in his official character, the State itself may be considered a party in the record. The Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia, 5 Pet., 1, where it was held that the plaintiff was a State and nota foreign nation; New Jersey v. New York, Id., 284, where it was held that service of process may be made on the Governor and Attorney-General; where an alien was a party, Ex parte Madrazo,7 Id., 627; the Supreme Court has jurisdiction in a suit between States to establish the boundery line, The State of Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Id., 657; Same v. Same, 13 Id., 23; Same v. Same, 14 Id., 210; Same v. Same, 15 Id., 233; also of a question of disputed boundery, Same v. Same, 4 How., 591; same, The State of Missouri v. The State of Iowa, 7 Id., 660; The State of Florida v. The State of Georgia, 17 Id., 478, about boundery line; Ex parte, In the Matter of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, by McGoffin, Governor, v. Dennison, Governor of Ohio, 24 How., 66 (1860) a motion for mandamus, held, that a suit by or against a Governor of a State, as such, in his official character, is a suit by or against a State, and that a Governor of a State could not be compelled to arrest or deliver up a fugitive, by any coercive power existing in the Supreme Court. In Texas v. White, 7 Wall., 700 (1868), it was held that the State of Texas did not cease to be a State, notwithstanding the ordinance of secession ratified by her citizens, and that public property of the State alienated during the rebellion by a usurping State government, for the purpose of carrying on war against the United States, might be reclaimed by the State organized in allegiance to the Union, for the benefit of the State.

It is not sufficient to aver in the pleadings, in a suit by a State against a

corporation, that the defendant is a body politic in the laws of another State named, and doing business in it. The court has no original jurisdiction of a suit by a State against its citizens. Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall., 553. See, also, Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Id., 39-injunction to restrain obstruction of a river.

Consent of parties cannot give jurisdiction, but parties may admit facts which show such jurisdiction. Railway Co. v. Ramsey, 22 Wall., 322.

SEC. 688. Writs of prohibition and mandamus.-The Supreme Court shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, where a State, or an embassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul is a party.

24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 13, v. 1, p. 80.

The writ of prohibition.-The writ of prohibition can only be used to prevent the doing of some act by the district court acting as a court of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and which is about to be done. If the act is already done the writ cannot undo it. The only effect of the writ is to suspend action and prevent any further action in reference to the thing prohibited. United States v. Hoffman, 4 Wall., 158; Ex parte Christy, 3 How., 292.

Where the district court has no jurisdiction the Supreme Court will grant a writ of prohibition to the district judge. Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S., 68; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall., 121.

The writ cannot issue to revise decrees in bankruptcy, nor in any case except in proceedings in admiralty and maritine jurisdiction. Ex parte City Bank of New Orleans, 3 How., 292. As to the time of application for, under the provisions of the act of May 31, 1870, "to enforce the rights of citizens of the United States to vote," etc., see, 17 Wall., 64.

In proceedings under the act entitled, "An act to suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels," etc., it was held that they are not proceedings in admiralty, although the act declares they shall be in rem, and conform as near as may be, to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, and that no writ of prohibition lies in such cases. Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall., 541; The Union. Ins. Co. v. United States, 6 Wall., 759; United States v. Armstrong's Foundery, Id., 766; The Sarah, 8 Wh., 391.

A writ of prohibition will not issue in cases where there is no appellate power given by law, or any special authority to issue the writ, and it will not lie to a circuit court in a criminal case. Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black.,