"CASES" here is applied as a generic term to all the objects How is the designated by case " and "controversy" in the preceding clause. term cases applied? Curtis' Com. § 83. See " case and " controversy defined. 199-201. Id.; ante, n. 199; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 333; Curtis' Com. § 124-130. If the words "to all cases give exclusive jurisdiction in cases affecting foreign MINISTERS, they may also give exclusive jurisdiction, if such be the will of Congress, in cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United 181, 182, 202. States. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392-399.) Story's Const. § 1713. diction of every case But it does not mean that the court has jurisdiction of every Has the ( CASE or question which may arise under the Constitution, laws, court jurisor treaties. These often necessarily devolve upon Congress or the executive, according as the law shall direct. (Luther v. Borden, or question ? 7 How. 1.) Curtis' Com. § 84-85a. The word is therefore limited to such "cases" as arise between parties, or are of a judicatory nature. (Madison, 5 Elliot's Debates, 483.) Id. § 85a, 100. Not to all questions by which an AMBASSADOR may be affected. Id. See Stanbery's arguments in the Mississippi and Georgia Injunction cases, against the President and others, reported in 4 Wallace. See the United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40. 195. "ORIGINAL JURISDICTION is the right to take original cog- What is nizance of the case or controversy, and to hear and determine original it in the first instance. It is that in which something is demanded jurisdiction? in the first instance by the institution of process, or the commencement of a suit. Curtis' Com. § 107; Story's Const. § 1703, 1704. The residue of the original jurisdiction remains to be vested by Where is Congress in any inferior tribunals which it may see fit to create, the residue (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304, 307; Osborn v. The Bank of the of the original jurisdicUnited States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. tion? 395; Story's Const. § 1698.) Curtis' Com. § 111. of the Original jurisdiction, so far as the Constitution gives a rule, is What is coextensive with the judicial power. (Osborn v. Bank of United the extent States, 9 Wheat. 820.) Curtis' Com. § 159. And it would seem original to follow that in cases where the Constitution itself has vested jurisdicoriginal jurisdiction in the Supreme Court, that investiture must. tion? operate as an exception to the general authority to Congress to vest original jurisdiction according to its discretion. Id. And there is doubt whether in such cases jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not both original and exclusive. (United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; See Story's Const. § 1699; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. XV. p. 315.) Curtis' Com. 160. But there are decisions the other way. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; and see also Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 431, 436; Act of 28 Feb. 1839 (5 St. 32); Curtis' Com. § 161-164; Schooner Exchange v. McFaddin, 2 Cr. 117. tion? Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine a cause. It is What is coram judice, whenever a case is presented, which brings this jurisdicpower into action. If the petitioner states such a case in his peti. tion, that on a demurrer, the court would render judgment in his 195. Has a State zance of consuls? When is favor, it is an undoubted case of jurisdiction. (United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 709.) Banton v. Wilson, 4 Tex. 403, 404. It is the power to hear and determine the subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit; to adjudicate or to exercise judicial power over them, the question is, whether on a cause before a court, their action is judicial or extrajudicial; with or without authority of law to render a judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. If the law confer the power to render a judgment or decree, then the court has jurisdiction. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 718.) Banton v. Wilson, 4 Tex. 404. A State court has no jurisdiction of a suit against a consul; and court cogni- whenever this defect of jurisdiction is suggested, the court will quash the proceeding. It is not necessary that it should be by plea before general imparlance. Mannhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binn. 138; Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41; Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545; Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer, 656. A consul may, however, be summoned as a garnishee in an attachment from a State court. Kidderlin v. Meyer, 2 Miles, 242. The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a cause in which a State is a party. Gale v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C. 199; S. C. Id. 344; Cohens v. Virginia, already cited. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, founded on the character of the parties, the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellate form. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 820. But if a case draws in question the laws, Constitution, or treaties of 181, 182, 202. the United States, though a State be a party, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is appellate; for in such case the jurisdiction is founded, not upon the character of the parties, but upon the nature of the controversy. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392; Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 337. Congress has no power to confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court in other cases than those enumerated in this section. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; In the matter of Metzger, 3 How. 176, 191-2; In re Kaine, 14 How. 119. See 1 St. 80, § 13; 1 Brightly's Dig. 861, 862, and notes. there original and appellate jurisdiction? What is appellate jurisdiction? And it seems that the original jurisdiction is exclusive. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137.) Curtis' Com. § 108; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 820, 821; Story's Const. § 1697– 1699. Where the character of the cause gives appellate jurisdiction, and the character of the party (as an ambassador or State) gives original jurisdiction, the appellate jurisdiction is not thereby ousted. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat, 392 et seq.; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 337.) Curtis' Com. § 109; Story's Const. § 1706-1721. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court can only include cases enumerated in the Constitution. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137.) 211. "IN ALL OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED, THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE APPELLATE JURISDICTION," &c.-It is the essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 138; Curtis' Com. § 110, 113. The Supreme Court possesses no appellate power in any case, How must unless conferred upon it by act of Congress, nor can it, when con- it be conferred, be exercised in any other mode of proceeding than that which the law prescribes. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 119. The appellate powers are not given by the judicial act, but by the Constitution. They are limited and regulated by the judicial act, and by such other acts as have been passed upon the subject. Durousseau v. The United States, 6 Cr. 313. Curtis' Com. § 112. Congress may prescribe the mode of exercising this appellate jurisdiction. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 449; United States v. Hamilton, 3 Dall. 17; Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75; Ex parte Kearney, 7 Wheat. 38; Ex parte Crane, 5 Pet. 190; Story's Const. § 1755, 1756; Curtis' Com. § 113. ferred? By the 22d section of the judiciary act, the controversy must What does be concerning a thing of money value; the judgment must be the act final; and the matter in controversy must exceed the sum of two require thousand dollars. By the 25th section, the right to re-examine does not depend on the money value of the thing in controversy, but upon the character of the right in dispute, and the judgment which the State court has pronounced upon it; and it is altogether immaterial whether the right in controversy can or can not be measured by a money standard. (1 St. 84-86; § 22, 25. Barry v. Mercein, 5 How. 120. See Wilson v. Daniel, 3 Dall. 401; 3 Cond. 185; Course v. Stead, 4 Dall. 22; 1 Cond. 217; United States v. Brig Union, 4 Cr. 216; 2 Cond. 91; Smith v. Henry, 3 Pet. 469; Gordon v. Ogden, Id. 33; Hagan v. Foison, 10 Pet. 160; Oliver v. Alexander, 6 Pet. 143; Scott v. Lunt, 6 Pet. 349; Wallen v. Williams, 7 Cr. 278; Fisher v. Cockrell, 5 Pet. 248; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; 3 Cond. 575; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117; 6 Cond. 462.) Bank of United States v. Daniel, 12 How. 52. Rector v. Ashley, U. S. C. C. Dic. T., 1867; 6 Wall. 000. To give appellate jurisdiction under the 25th section, it must appear: First-That some one of the questions stated in the section did what gives arise in the court below; and Secondly, that a decision was appellate jurisdicactually made thereon by the same court, in the manner required tion? by the section. (Shoemaker v. Randell, 10 Pet. 394.) McKinney v. Carroll, 12 How. 70. That is, that the question was made and the decision given by the court below on the very point; or that it must have been given in order to have arrived at the judgment. (Owings v. Norwood, 5 Cr. 344; Smith v. The State, 6 Cr. 281; Martin v. Hunter, 5 Wheat. 305, 355; Inglee v. Coolidge, 4 Cond. 155; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 Wheat. 311, 315; 4 Cond. 465; Williams v. Norris, 12 Wheat. 117, 124; 6 Cond. 462; Fisher v. Cockerill, 5 Pet. 255, 258; Wilson v. Blackbird Creek Marsh Company, 2 Pet. 245; Satterlee v. Mathewson, 2 Pet. 380, 410; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. Give tho four requisites? Define law and fact? 270-272. What gives the appellate jurisdiction? What jurisdiction can Congress confer? Can the States superadd any thing? 410; Davis v Packard, 6 Pet. 41, 48; Mayor of New Orleans. Pet. 234.) Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 394-398. After this rull review, these propositions were stated:-1. That some one of the questions (stated in the 25th section) did arise in the State court; 2. That the question was decided by the State court as required in the same section; 3. It is not necessary that the question should appear on the record to have been raised, and the decision made in direct and positive terms ipsissimis verbis; but that it is sufficient if it appear by clear and necessary intendment, that the question must have been raised, and must have been decided in order to have induced the judgment. 4. That it is not sufficient to show that a question might have arisen and been applicable to the case; unless it is further shown on the record, that it did arise, and was applied by the State court in the case. Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet. 398. Affirmed, Choteam v. Marguerite, 12 How. 510; McKinney v. Carroll, 12 How. 70. See Brightly's Digest, Tit. "ERRORS AND APPEALS," pp. 257–261, and voluminous notes thereon. "LAW AND FACT."-Since the seventh amendment, Congress can not confer upon the Supreme Court authority to grant a new trial by a re-examination of the facts, and tried by a jury, except to redress errors of law. (Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447, 449. See Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Pet. 492). Curtis' Com. § 114. It is the " case " and not the court which gives the appellate jurisdiction. (Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 394). Curtis' Com. § 115. Therefore, if the question or the parties give federal jurisdiction, it may be reached by appeal. Id.; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 413. The objects of appeal, not the tribunals from which it is to be made, are alone contemplated. Id. 416; Curtis' Com. § 116. And see Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 820, 821; Story's Const. § 1701. If the objects can be attained without excluding the concurrent jurisdiction of the State courts, over cases which existed before, it would seem to be necessary to adopt such a construction as will sustain their concurrent powers. (Teal v. Felton, 12 How. 284, 292.) Curtis' Com. § 121, 123, 124. As to when original jurisdiction is exclusive, see same author, § 129-135, and Martin v. Hunter; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 12. Congress can not confer jurisdiction upon any courts, but such as exist under the Constitution and laws of the United States, although the State courts may exercise jurisdiction in cases authorized by the laws of the State, and not prohibited by the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal courts. Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 24-28, § 135, p. 178. And wherever the law of Congress furnishes the offense, the State law can only be enforced by the authority of Congress, or unless the power remain concurrent. Id. If the jurisdiction be concurrent, the sentence of either court may be pleaded in law. Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 40; 1 Curtis' Com. p. 180. Where Congress has exercised a power over a particular subject given them by the Constitution, it is not competent for State legislation to add to the provisions of Congress upon that subject. The action by Congress seems to exclude State legislation. (Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1, 22, 23; Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 608.) Story's Const. 3d ed. p. 615. three cases 2. Where a may a State "WHERE A STATE SHALL BE A PARTY."-That is: 1. Where one In what State is plaintiff, and another State is defendant; State is plaintiff, and an individual, whether a citizen of some other be a party? State or an alien, is defendant. 3. Where a foreign State is plaintiff against one of the United States as defendant. Curtis' Com. § 153-157. See Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. 283; Pennsylvania v. The Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. 13 Howard, 528; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1; Ex parte Juan Madrazo, 7 Pet. 627. where must had? [3.] The trial of all crimes, except in cases of im- How and peachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be trials be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed. 212. “THE TRIAL." (L. Lat. trialio. Exactissima litis contestatæ, Define coram judice, per duodecem virale exagititio. SPELMAN.)-The term trial? means here, the examination before a competent tribunal, according to the laws of the land, of the facts put in issue upon the indictment or presentment, for the purpose of determining the truth of such issues. United States v. Curtis, 4 Mason, 232; Co. Litt. 124b. And see Burrill's Law Dic., TRIAL; Magna Charta, ch. 29 (9 Henry III.); 2 Inst. 45; 3 Black. Com. 379-381; 4 Black. Com. 349, 350; 2 Kent's Com. Lect. 24, pp. 1-9; 3 Elliot's Debates, 331, 339; De Lolme, B. 1, ch. 13, B. 2, ch. 16; Paley, B. 6, ch. 8; 2 Wilson's Law Lect. P. 2, ch. 6, p. 305; Story's Const. § 1778-1794. "The trial" per pais, or by the country, is the trial by a jury, who are called the peers of the party accused, being of the like condition and equality in the State. (Magna Charta.) Story's Const. § 1779. "OF ALL CRIMES EXCEPT IN CASES OF IMPEACHMENT."-See What means here? 39. "CRIME" defined, notes 193, 194. Here it means eason, piracy, "crimes" felony, or some offense against the law of nations or an act of the Congress of the United States. And this clause is to be taken subject to the exceptions, in the fifth amendment, as to trials in the land and naval service. The term "crime" here doubtless embraces misdemeanor. In the case of the United States v.. Hudson & Goodwin (7 Cranch, 32), it was held that "the legislative authority must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense," before the courts of the United States can exercise jurisdiction over it. This doctrine was affirmed by the case of the United States v. Coolidge et al. (1 Wheaton, 415), and Chief-Justice Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the court in Ex parte Bollman & Swartwout (4 Cranch, |