Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

§ 1. Supreme and inferior courts.-The judicial power of the United States shall bə vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. (U. S. Const. art. 3.)

Power of Congress.-Congress cannot confer any part of the judicial power upon an executive officer. (Beatty v. U. S., 1 Dev. 231.) Congress cannot give

FED. PROC.-1.

jurisdiction or require services of any officer of a State government. (Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539.) Congress cannot vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by itself (U. S. v. Ames, 1 Wood. & M. 89; The British Prisoners, 1 Wood. & M. 66; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 3 Serg. & R. 169; Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300; Davison v. Champlin, 7 Conn. 244; Ely v. Peck, 7 Conn. 239; U. S. v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; State v. McBride, Rice, 400; Jackson v. Rose, 2 Va. Cas. 34), nor vest any portion of the jurisdiction of the United States in State courts. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; Stearns v. U. S., 2 Paine, 300; Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300; Ely v. Peck, 7 Conn. 239; Davison v. Champlin, 7 Conn. 244; U. S. v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; State v. McBride, Rice, 400; Jackson v. Rose, 2 Va. Cas. 34.) A State court cannot exercise jurisdiction conferred upon it by Congress. (Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300.) Congress cannot enforce jurisdiction on a State court (Stearns v. U. S., 2 Paine, 300; Ex parte Stephens, 70 Mass. 559; Miss. Riv. Tel. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 7 Chic. L. N. 157; The British Prisoners, 1 Wood. & M. 66), nor compel a State court to exert jurisdiction (Stearns v. U. S., 2 Paine, 300; Missis sippi Riv. Tel. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 7 Chic. L. N. 158; Ex parte Stephens, 70 Mass. 559), nor can Congress give jurisdiction, or require service of any officer of a State government as such (Prigg v. Commonwealth, 16 Peters, 539; Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276), nor confer jurisdiction on a military commission. (Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 121.) This clause does not apply to or prohibit the establishment of military courts in the insurrectionary States. (Territorial Courts, see art. 4, sec. 3, subd. 2.) Congress may authorize any United States court to perform any act which the Constitution does not require to be performed in a different manner. (Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala. 156; Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276.) The judicial power of the United States is vested, by the Constitution, in the courts of the United States. (Thomas v. Loney, 134 U. S. 372.) Whether Congress may confer on inferior courts jurisdiction of cases, whereof it gives the Supreme Court

original jurisdiction, not decided. (Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449.) That it may confer original jurisdiction to subordinate courts over cases affecting consuls. (See Bors v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252; United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297 [C. Ct.]; Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters. 276; sce Ex parte Hitz, 111 U. S. 766.) Congress may establish circuit and district courts in any State in the Union, and may confer on them equitable jurisdiction in cases coming within the Constitution (Livingston v. Story, 9 Peters, 632); and in all cases to which the judicial power extends it may rightfully vest exclusive jurisdiction. (The Moses Taylor v. Hammons, 4 Wall. 411.) Its power, however, affords no pretext for abrogating any established law of property, or for removing any obligation of the citizens of a State to submit to the rule of the local sovereign. (Suydam v. Williamson, 24 How. 427.

Judicial power.-The Constitution defines the limits of the judicial power, but Congress prescribes how much of it is to be exercised by the Federal courts. (Turner v. Bank of N. A., 4 Dall. 10; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 506; Kendall v. U. S., 12 Peters, 616; Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 245; Clark v. City of Jonesville, 4 Am. Law Reg. 593.) Judicial power means that power with which courts are clothed for the purpose of the trial and determination of causes (U. S. v. Arredondo, 6 Peters, 691; Banton v. Wilson, 4 Texas, 400; Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala. 156)—the power conferred to render a judgment or decree. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657.) It is not sufficient to bring a matter under the judicial power that it involves the exercise of judgment upon law and facts. (U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Murray v. Hoboken, etc. Co., 18 How. 272; Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala. 156.) The power to hear and pass upon the validity of a claim in an ex parte proceeding is not a judicial power. (U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; U. S. v. Todd, 13 How. 52; Humphreys v. U. S., 1 Dov. 204.) A provision requiring an assessor to impose a certain penalty if he shall find a return false does not confer judicial power (Doll v. Evans, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 143); but administrative duties, the performance of which involves an inquiry into the existence of facts, and the application of them to the rules of

law is, in an enlarged sense, a judicial act, as the adjustment of balances and auditing of accounts. (Murray v. Hoboken, etc. Co. 18 How. 272.) Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge, but always of the will of the legislature, or of the law (Osborn v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 818), and must regard the Constitution as paramount. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 178; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 414.) The powers not bestowed upon the Federal courts by legislative provisions remain dormant until some law shall call them into action by designating the particular tribunal which shall be authorized to exercise them. (Bank of U. S. v. Roberts, 4 Conn. 323; Bank of U. S. v. Northumberland Bank, 4 Conn. 333.) The distribution of powers is regulated and governed by the laws by which they are constituted. (Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453; Moffit v. Soey, 2 Paine, 103; Shute v. Davis, Peters C. C. 431.) The object of this provision was to establish a judiciary of the United States as a department of the government (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; Osborne v. Bank of U. S., 9 Wheat. 818) which cannot interfere with the political department. (Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Loan Asso. v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 669.) Neither the executive nor legislative department can be restricted by the judicial, though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance. (Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 500, reviewing Marbury v. Madison, 1 Crauch, 137; Kendall v. Stokes, 12 Peters, 527.) The condition of peace or war, public or civil, must be determined by the political department, and not the judicial. (U. S. v. Packages, 11 Am. Law Reg. 419.) Whether a foreign country has become an independent State is a question for the treatymaking power, and cannot be decided by the judiciary. (Kennett v. Chambers, 14 How. 38; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 Wall. 246; Rose v. Himely, 4 Cranch, 241.) There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents a ministerial officer, or person by law directed, to do an act necessary to bring the accusel before the court possessing judicial power of determining his guilt or innocence. (Prigg v. Comm., 16 Peters, 539; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. 506; Ex parte Martin, 2 Paine, 348; Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala

156; Ex parte Pool, 2 Va. Cas. 276.) The general government has full authority to appoint and commission all courts, magistrates and officers to carry out its laws. (Ex parte Stephens, 70 Mass. 559.) As a general rule of law, a jurisdiction conferred upon a special tribunal does not oust that of the courts of general jurisdiction, unless there be a plainly manifested intention of the legislature to that effect, to be derived from the words of the statute, or a necessary implication therefrom. (Fidelity Trust Co. v. Gill Car. Co., Cır. Ct. Ohio, 25 Fed. Rep. 737.)

Jurisdiction.-The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is pointed out in the Constitution. (Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453.) Its original jurisdiction exists only in cases of ambassadors, etc., and where a State is a party. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304.) Its appellate power is to be defined by Congress. (Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Peters, 540; Decatur v. Paulding, 14 Peters, 612.) It has no power to review by certiorari proceedings of a military commission. (Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243.) The vesting of judicial power is imperative. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 328; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 214.) The power to establish courts and confer jurisdiction is unlimited. (Mayo v. Cooper, 6 Wall. 251.) Neither the legislative nor executive branches can assign any duties but such as are properly judicial, and to be performed in a judicial manner. (Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40; Doll v. Evans, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 143.) Congress may say how much and what shall vest in one inferior court, and what in another. (U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 437.) An inferior court is one whose judgment can be reversed on appeal. (Nugent v. State, 18 Ala. 52.) Their jurisdiction depends exclusively on the Constitution and the terms of statutes passed in pursuance thereof (Mossman v. Higgenson, 4 Dall. 12; Hodgson v. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303; Bank of United States v. Devaux. 5 Cranch, 61; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Peters, 511; Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock, 203; U. S. v. Drenner, Hemp. 320; U. S. v. Alberti, Hemp. 444), or by treaty. (U.S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 437; The British Prisoners, 1 Wood. & M. 66; Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453.) The United States

« AnteriorContinuar »