How far does the jurisdiction extend? Why was maritime used? What was the extent and division jurisdic tion? The Admiralty clause embraces what was known and understood in the United States, as the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, at the time when the Constitution was adopted. Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443; New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Id. 244; Waring v. Clark, 8 Id. 441; Tunno v. The Betsina, 5 Am. L. R., 408; The Huntress, Davies, 83. And also extends the power so as to cover every expansion of jurisdiction. Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 458. The word "maritime" was added to guard against any narrow interpretation of the preceding word "admiralty." Story's Const. § 1666. In Hine v. Trevor, 4 Wall. 561-569, Mr. Justice Miller reviewed the steamboat Thomas Jefferson, 10 Wh. 428; The steamboat Orleans, 11 Pet. 175; Warring v. Clark, 8 How. 441; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 457 (which overruled the first two); Fritz v. Bull, 12 How; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; The statute of 1845, 5 St. 726; of 1789, 1 St. 77, and deduced the following rules -— 1. The admiralty jurisdiction is not limited to tide water, but covers the entire navigable waters of the United States; 2. The of admiralty original jurisdiction in admiralty, exercised by the district courts, by virtue of the act of 1789, is exclusive, not only of the federal courts, but of the State courts also; 3. The jurisdiction of admiralty causes arising on the interior waters of the United States, other than the lakes and their connecting waters, is conferred by the Act of September 24th, 1789; 4. The admiralty jurisdiction exercised by the same courts, on the lakes, and the waters connecting those lakes, is governed by the Act of 3d February, 1845; 5. The Acts of the State legislatures, which virtually give admiralty remedies on the navigable rivers, are unconstitutional and void. 4 Wall. 569. Enumerate cases? Since the case of the Genesee Chief (12 How. 457), navigable waters may be substituted for tide-waters. The Plymouth, 3 Wall. 34. The jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in this country, at the some of the time of the Revolution, and for a century before, was more extensive than the high court of admiralty in England. Paschal's Annotated Digest, note 89; The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 455. This jurisdiction extends to the navigable lakes and rivers of the United States, without regard to the ebb and flow of the tides of the ocean. Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443. It embraces all maritime contracts, wheresoever the same may be made or executed, and whatever may be the form of the stipulations; and also all torts and injuries committed upon waters within its jurisdiction. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398; Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger, Curt. C. C. 322; Philadelphia & Havre de Grace Towboat Co. v. Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad Co. 5 'Am. L. R. 280. All crimes and offenses against the laws of the United States. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371; United States v. Bevans, 3 Wh. 336. And all cases of seizures for breaches of the revenue laws, and those made in the exercise of the rights of war. The Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; The Sally, 2 Cr. 406; The New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344. Another class of cases, in which jurisdiction has always been exercised by the admiralty courts in this country, but which is denied in England, are suits by ship-carpenters and material-men, for repairs and necessaries made and furnished to ships, whether foreign, or in the port of a State to which they do not belong, or in the home port, if the municipal laws give a lien for the work and materials. Gardner v. The New Jersey, 1 Pet. Adm. 227; Stevens v. The Sandwich, Id. 233, n.; Zane v. The Brig President, 4 Wash. C. C. 453; The Ship Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620; Davis v. A New Brig, Gilp. 473; The General Smith, 4 Wh. 438; Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 590; Curtis' Com. § 36-52. The jurisdiction extends to the seizure of cotton upon rivers in 117, 118. the States in rebellion. Mrs. Alexander's Cotton, 2 Wall. 419. But cotton seized upon land could not be the subject of lawful prize, although it was subject to capture, notwithstanding it was private property. Id. diction 204. "CONTROVERSIES TO WHICH THE UNITED STATES SHALL BE Where is A PARTY.”—1. The jurisdiction is not conferred upon any particular the juriscourt; Congress must therefore designate the tribunal; 2. Cogni- when the zance is not given of all controversies, but only of some; 3. "Con- United troversies seem to embrace only civil suits. Cohens v. Vir- States is a ginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 411, 412; Story's Const. § 1674-1681; Curtis' party? Com. § 56, 57. States be The United States can only be sued in cases where it has con- When can sented to be sued by act of Congress. Curtis' Com. § 57; Story's the United Const. § 1677, 1678. As in suits for the confirmation of land sued? grants and in the Court of Claims. Curtis' Com. § 100-102. A suit against the President to prevent the enforcement of the reconstruction laws, was held to be a suit against the executive of the United States, and dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 498. Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 000. 205. "To CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STates." -This means States of the Union. against a This clause about suits between States, includes a suit brought What may by one State against another, to determine a question of disputed be included boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; Alabama by a Stato v. Georgia, 23 How. 510. And only applies to those States that State? are members of the Union, and to public bodies owing obedience 8, 9, 223– and conformity to its Constitution and laws. Scott v. Jones, 5 228. How. 377. And a State is within the operation of this clause only when it is a party to the record, as a plaintiff or defendant, in its political capacity. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738; 1 Curtis' Com. § 59, 63. The Cherokee nation is not a State, within the meaning of the Constitution, either foreign or domestic-nor had it the right to sue Georgia before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 1620. As early as 1792, this court exercised original jurisdiction, without any further legislation than the act of 1789. (Brailsford v. Georgia, 2 Dall 402, 415; Oswald v. Georgia, Dall.; Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 478; New Jersey v. New York, 5 Pet. should the process be served? Upon whom 284; Grayson v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 320.) These cases settlo that the process should be served upon the chief executive and attorney-general of the State. Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 96–7. Where the governor sues or is sued, in his official capacity, it is a suit by or against the State. Id. 97, 99; Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, 1 Pet. 110. A mandamus is an ordinary process to which a State is entitled, where it is applicable. (Kendall v. The United States, 12 Pet. 615; Kendall v. Stokes, 3 How. 100.) Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 97-8. 271, 272. 205, 203. 211, 271, 272. Can a State? For the necessity of this jurisdiction, see Federalist, No. 80; Kent's The jurisdiction is a necessity to prevent a resort to the sword. A State obtained an injunction to prevent the construction of a bridge which would impede the navigation of the Ohio River. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co. 13 How. 518. The 11th article of the amendments has forbidden suits by individual citizens against the States. If the judicial power does not extend to all controversies between States, it excludes none. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657; Curtis' Com. § 60. Its mere interest in a corporation will not oust the jurisdiction, U. S. Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904, 966; Curtis' Com. 66. See also Bank of the Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Wistar, 2 Pet. 318. It seems the court will look into the interest of the State, where it claims to be a party. Pennsylvania v. Wheeling Bridge Co. 13 How. 518, 539; Curtis' Com. § 70. 205a. "BETWEEN A STATE AND THE CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE."-Before the eleventh amendment (1793), it was held, that this authorized suits to be brought against, as well as by States, where the plaintiff was a citizen of another State. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419-478; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406; Curtis' Com. § 60. But this power of a citizen to sue a State is removed by the citizen sue a eleventh amendment. For the history and object of the amendment, see Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 406 et seq.: Curtis' Com. § 62. But where a State recovers a judgment against a citizen a writ of error will still lie. Id.; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 409. 271, 272. When is a the rule? A State is within the operation of this original clause of the State within Constitution, only when it is a party to the record, as plaintiff or defendant, in its political capacity. Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Curtis' Com. § 63-65. New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 3; Story's Const. § 1680, 1681. 271. Where a State is a party to the record, the question of jurisdiction is decided by inspection. Id. The State is only a party when it is on the record as such. (Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dall. 411, 415; S. C. 1 Pet. Com. 190, 191; New York v. Connecticut, 4 Dall. 1-6; United States v. Peters, 5 Cr. 115, 139; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 15, p. 302.) Story's Const. $1685. V. 206. "CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES." Contro 199-201. mean? 274. 274. "" "CONTROVERSIES is synonymous with civil suits. Curtis' versies? Com. § 73. It may be deduced: 1. That they are all citizens of Who are the United States, who are domiciliated in a State; (Scott v. Sand- citizens of a State? ford, 19 How. 393.) 2. And they are suits where one party is a citizen of one State, and the other a citizen of another. Curtis' 17, 19, 25, 93, 169, 220Com. § 73. The situation of the parties, rather than their char- 222. acters determines the jurisdiction. Id. At the commencement of What determines the the suit. Connoly v. Taylor, 2 Peters, 556, 564. jurisdiction? This clause does not embrace cases where one of the parties is What does a citizen of a territory, or of the District of Columbia. Hartshorn citizenship Wright, Peters C. C. 61; Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 377; Hepburn 6, 18, 93, v. Elszey, 2 Cr. 445; Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter, 1 170, 220. Wh. 91; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Pet. 761; 1 Kent's Com. Lect. 17, p. 360; Story's Const. § 1693, 1694; Curtis' Com. § 77. Citizenship, when spoken of in the Constitution, in reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, means nothing more than residence. Lessee of Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 Wash. C. C. 546; Gassies v. Ballou, 6 Pet. 761; Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163; Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. C. C. 101. But a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, nor entitled to sue in that character in the federal courts. Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393-4. But see the Civil Rights Bill, note 6, p. 55; 14 St. p. 27, § 1; Paschal's Annotated Digest, Art. 5382. A corporation created by, and transacting business in a State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the State, capable of being treated as a citizen, for all purposes of suing and being sued. Louisville R. R. Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497; Marshall v. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. 16 Id. 314; Wheeden v. Camden & Amboy R. R. Co. 4 Am. L. R. 296. The judiciary act confines the jurisdiction, on the ground of citizenship, to cases where the suit is between a citizen of a State and a citizen of another State; and, although the Constitution gives a broader extent to the judicial power, the actual jurisdiction of the circuit courts is governed by the act of Congress. Moffat v. Soley, 2 Paine, 103; Hubbard v. Northern R. R. Co. 25 Vt. 715. So, too, in the same act, there is an exception, that where suit is brought in favor of an assignee, there shall be no jurisdiction, unless suit could have been brought in the courts of the United States, had no assignment been made. This is a restriction on the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution; and yet this provision has been sustained by the Supreme Court since its organization. Assignee of Brainard v. Williams, 4 McLean, 122; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441. The Constitution has defined the limits of the judicial power, but has not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the circuit courts. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 10; McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cr. 506; Kendall v. United States, 12 Pet. 616; Cary v. Curtis 3 How. 245, 222 How must the citizen ship be averred? What is the extent of the jurisdiction? Can a corpo ration be a citizen? It is well understood by those experienced in the jurisprudence of the United States, that Congress has conferred upon the federal courts but a portion of the jurisdiction contemplated by the Constitution. Clarke v. City of Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593. The plaintiffs should distinctly aver that they are citizens of different States; and in the absence of such averment, the judgment will be reversed for want of jurisdiction. (Bingham v. Cabott, 3 Dall. 382; Jackson v. Ashton, 8 Pet. 148; Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cr. 126; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46.) Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 420. Curtis' Com. § 79, note 4. But if the citizenship be denied, it should be by plea in abatement, or it should otherwise appear in the record. Id. See 1 Brightly's Dig. p. 126. sec. 17, and notes thereon. The Constitution of the Confederate States omitted this jurisdiction. Paschal's Annotated Dig. p. 92. In other respects it corresponded to this section and the eleventh amendment. Id. The citizenship must be expressly averred, or the facts which constitute it must be set forth. (Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8; Montalet v. Murray, 4 Cr. 46; Bailey v. Dozier, 6 How. 23.) Curtis' Com. § 78. See the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, 1 St. 78; 1 Brightly's Digest, p. 126 and notes. The Judiciary Act of 1789 limited jurisdiction of national courts so far as they are determined by citizenship, "to suits between a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought and a citizen of another State," and except in relation to revenue cases this limitation remains unchanged. Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542. In consequence of nullification the jurisdiction was extended to "all cases in law or equity arising under the revenue laws of the United States for which other provisions have not already been made." (4 Stat. 632.) Id. And by this act many suits brought in the State courts were removed into the circuit courts (Elliott v. Swartwout, 10 Pet. 137; Bend v. Hoyt, 13 Pet. 267); Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 542. The fiftieth section of the Internal Revenue Act of 1854 extended the act of 1833 to all cases arising under the laws for the collection of internal duties. (12 Stat. 241.) Id. But the act of 1866 repealed the fiftieth section aforesaid, without any saving of such causes as were then pending, and said that "the act of 1833 shall not be so construed as to apply to cases arising under act of 1864," &c. This ousted jurisdiction in the causes then pending. Id. When the jurisdiction of a cause depends upon a statute, the repeal of which takes away the jurisdiction, or it is prohibited by a subsequent statute, it can no longer be exercised. (Rex v. Justices of London, 3 Burrow, 1456; Norris v. Crocker, 13 How. 229.) Ins. Co. v. Ritchie, 5 Wall. 544. where the case would be removable under the new provision, and it is the opinion of the circuit judge that it ought to be retained, the jurisdiction is not lost. City of Philadelphia v. Collector, 4 Wall. 720-30. But As respects the proof of the residence or domiciliation to consti. tute citizenship, see Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163, 185. A corporation, whose members are citizens of a different State from the other party, is a citizen of a different State. Hope Ins. |