Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Appointing power.

Art. 2. Sect. 2. nominate,(o) and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, (p) shall appoint (q) ambassadors, other public ministers(r) and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law.(s) But the congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers,(t) as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Ibid. Powers to fill vacancies.

Art. 2. Sect. 3.

Further powers.

Ibid. Impeachments.

Art. 3. Sect. 1. Judiciary.

46. The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, (u) by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.(v)

47. He shall, from time to time, give to the congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measure as he shall judge necessary and expedient. He may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper. He shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ;(w) and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

48. The president, vice-president and all civil officers(x) of the United States, shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.(y)

ARTICLE III.

49. The judicial power of the United States(z) shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain

(0) The nomination and appointment are voluntary acts, and distinct from the commissioning. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 155-6. Even after confirmation, the president may, in his discretion, withhold a commission; and until a commission has been signed, the appointment is not fully consummated. 4 Opin. 218.

(p) The senate cannot originate an appointment; its constitutional action is confined to a simple affirmation or rejection of the president's nominations; and such nominations fall whenever it disagrees to them. 3 Opin. 188. Congress have no power to enlarge the term of one holding for a fixed period. District Attorney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. c. 8 Int. R. Rec. 137.

(q) The power of the president to appoint to office, necessarily includes the power to remove all officers appointed and commissioned by him, where the constitution has not otherwise provided. Therefore, he may remove a territorial judge, in his discretion. 5 Opin. 288. 3 Ibid. 673. 4 Ibid. 603, 608-9. 4 Elliott's Debates 350. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 259. This power is restrained by the act of 5 April 1869. 16 Stat. 6; 1 R. S. § 1768.

(7) This gives him power to appoint diplomatic agents of any rank, at any place, and at any time, in his discretion, subject to the approbation of the senate; and this power cannot be limited by act of congress. 7 Opin. 186.

(s) The effect of this and the other clauses in the constitution on the subject of appointments to office, is to declare that all offices under the federal government, except in cases where the constitution itself may otherwise provide, shall be established by law. United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96.

(t) Clerks of courts are such officers; and in such cases, the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259. And see Gratiot v. United States, 1 Ct. Cl. 258. United States v. Avery, 1 Deady 204.

(u) He has no power, during a recess of the senate, to fill a vacancy that occurred, by expiration of commission, during a previous session. District Attorney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. c. 8 Int. R. Rec. 137. Contrà Ex parte Farrow, 4 Woods 491. Nor can he make an original appointment, during the recess, to an office created at the previous session. Schenck v. Peay, 1 Dill. 268. People v. Forquer, Breese 68. Ex parte Dodd, 11 Ark. 152. Serg. Const. Law 373. See Story Const. § 1559. (Clarke v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 112, contrà.) Nor can he fill a vacancy, which occurred during a previous recess, a session of the senate having intervened. Johns's Case, cited 1 Cong. Elect. Cas. 874. Williams's Case, 2 Ibid. 612. Phelps's Case, Ibid. 613. As to what is deemed a session of the senate, and what is deemed a recess, see District

Attorney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. c. 8 Int. R. Rec. 137. People v. Funchon, 50 N. Y. 288.

(v) The commission of an officer appointed during a recess, who is afterwards nominated and rejected, is not thereby determined; it continues in force until the end of the next session, unless sooner determined by the president.. Marshalship of Alabama, 20 Fed. Rep. 379. 2 Opin. 336. 4 Ibid. 30.

(w) If hostilities be actually waged against the constitution and laws, and assume the dimensions of a general war, it is the duty of the president to prosecute opposing hostilities, offensive as well as defensive, upon such a proportional scale as may be necessary to re-establish or to support and maintain the government. The General Parkhill, U. S. Dist. Court, E. Penn. 19 July 1861. As incident to this power, he has authority to appoint commissioners and agents to make investigations required by acts or resolutions of congress; but cannot pay them, except from an appropriation for that purpose. 4 Opin. 248. It is not, in general, judicious for him, in the exercise of this power, to interfere with the functions of subordinate officers further than to remove them for any neglect or abuse of their official trust. 5 Opin. 287. But where combinations exist among the citizens of one of the states to obstruct or defeat the execution of acts of congress, and the question of the constitutionality of such laws is made in suits against a marshal of the United States, the president is justified in assuming his defence on behalf of the United States. 6 Opin. 220, 500. The president cannot be restrained, by injunction, from carrying into effect an act of congress, on the ground of its alleged unconstitutionality. Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475.

(2) A senator or representative in congress is not such civil officer. Blount's Trial 22, 102. Whart. St. Tr. 260, 316. 1 Story Const. §§ 793, 802. Nor is a territorial judge, not being a constitutional, but a legislative officer only. 3 Opin. 409.

() No previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct. What are, and what are not high crimes and misdemeanors, is to be ascertained by a recurrence to the rules of the common law. 1 Story Const. § 799. For the rules of proceeding prescribed in cases of impeachment, see Peck's Trial 56-9; 1 Johns. Trial 13.

(z) The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States depends exclusively on the constitution and laws of the United States. Livingston v. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203. See American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511. 1 Curt. Com. § 4. United States v. Drennen, Hemp. 320. United States v. Alberty, Ibid. 444. They are not regarded, in the state courts, as courts of another sovereign. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh and Connellsville Railroad Co., 58 P. S. 26, 43.

Art. 3. Sect. 1. Tenure and com

and establish.(a) The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior; (b) and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in pensation. office.(c)

Judicial powers.

50. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, (d) in law (e) and equity, (9) Art. 3. Sect. 2. arising(h) under this constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting (i) ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; (k) to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;() to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; (m) to controversies between two or more states; (n) between a state and citizens of another

[blocks in formation]

66

(g) By cases in equity," are to be understood suits in which relief is sought according to the principles and practice of the equity jurisdiction as established in English jurisprudence. Robinson v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 222-3. United States v. Howland, 4 Ibid. 108. Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean 570-1. Lanmon v. Clark, 4 Ibid. 18. Gordon v. Hobart, 2 Sum. 401. Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mas. 95. Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. C. C. 465. And see 1 Curt. Com. § 27-9.

(h) A case is said to "arise" under the constitution or a law of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends on the construction of either. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379. A bill in equity to enforce specific performance of a contract to convey a patent, is not "a case arising under the laws of the United States" as to patents, so as alone to give jurisdiction to its courts. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 W. & M. 34.

(i) The federal courts have jurisdiction of all suits "affecting" public ministers, although they may not be parties to the record. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 854-5. See United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297. Gittings v. Crawford, Tan. Dec. 1. Sagory v. Wiss man, 2 Ben. 240.

(k) The recognition of the executive of the United States is conclusive as to the public character of the party. Dupont v. Pichon, 4 Dall. 321. United States v. Ortega, 4 W. C. C. 531.

(1) This embraces what was known and understood in the United States, as the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, at the time when the constitution was adopted. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443. New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Ibid. 344. Waring v. Clarke, 5 Ibid. 441. The Betsina, 5 Am. L. R. 408. The Huntress, Daveis 83. The Young America, 1 Newb. 101. The Golden Gate, 6 Am. L. R. 296; s. c. Newb. 308. The Hine, 4 Wall. 555. The jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in this country, at the time of the revolution, and for a century before, was more extensive than that of the high court of admiralty in England. Ibid. It is not limited to the particular subjects over which it was exercised in the English courts of admiralty, when the

federal constitution was adopted; neither does it extend, under the constitution and laws of congress, to all cases which would fall within its cognizance, according to the civil law, and the practice and usages of continental Europe. Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. 43. And see Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. 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. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443. The Hine, 4 Wall. 555. The Magnolia, 20 How. 296. Nelson v. Leland, 22 Ibid. 56. 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. Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. Chamberlain v. Chandler, 3 Mas. 242. Hale v. Washington Insurance Co., 2 Story 176. Gloucester Insurance Co. v. Younger, 2 Curt. C. C. 322. Philadelphia and Havre de Grace Tow-Boat Co. v. Philadelphia, Wilmington and Baltimore Railroad Co., 5 Am. L. R. 280. All crimes and offences against the laws of the United States. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 W. C. C. 371. United States v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 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 Betsey, 4 Ibid. 443. The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9. The Octavia, Ibid. 20. New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 344. The admiralty has also jurisdiction of suits for repairs and necessaries furnished to ships in a foreign port, or in the ports of a state to which they do not belong. The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438. Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324. The Nestor, 1 Sum. 73. The Chusan, 2 Story 455. The Medora, 2 W. & M. 92. Davis v. Child, Dav. 71. The President, 4 W. C. C. 453. The Eagle, Bee 78. The John Walls, 1 Spr. 178. The Sarah Starr, Ibid. 453. But it does not extend to cases where a lien is claimed for repairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in her home port. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393. Roach v. Chapman, 22 Ibid. 129. The St. Lawrence, 1 Bl. 522. The admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon the federal courts, by the constitution, is exclusive of the state courts. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. The Hine, Ibid. 556. The Belfast, 7 Ibid. 624. The Kinnie, 17 Am. L. R. 470. The Dubuque, 3 Chicago Leg. News 145. Ferran v. Hosford, 54 Barb. 200. Albany City Insurance Co. v. Whitney, 70 Penn. St. 248. See note to 4 Wheat. 444, as to the jurisdiction of the admiralty to enforce liens upon vessels created by the state law.

(m) Congress never having authorized suits to be brought against the United States, no such action can be commenced or prosecuted. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 411-12. See Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 283. United States v. McLemore, 4 Ibid. 256. Hill v. United States, 9 Ibid. 386. But this does not prevent the exercise of appellate jurisdiction, to obtain by writ of error a reversal of a judgment which has been rendered in favor of the United States. Ibid. Nor does it preclude individuals, when sued by the United States, from availing themselves of credits or set-offs against the United States. United States v. Bank of Metropolis, 15 Pet. 392. The sovereign power is not, by virtue of its prerogative, exempted from the operation of any general statutes, except those of liinitation. United States v. Tetlow, 2 Low. 159. See acts erecting the Court of Claims, 1 R. S. § 1059.

(n) This includes a suit brought by one state against another, to determine a question of disputed boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657. The individual states having submitted their

Art. 3. Sect. 2. state;(0) between citizens of different states;(p) between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, (9) and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, (r) citizens or subjects. (s)

51. In all cases affecting ambassadors, (t) other public ministers and consuls (u) and those in which a state shall be a party, (e) the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction. (w) In all the other cases before mentioned, (x) the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the congress shall make. (y)

52. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;(z) and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been com

Ibid.

Jurisdiction of the supreme court.

Ibid.

Trial for crimes.

interfering territorial claims to the judiciary of the United States, are, in respect to those rights, to be deemed to have ceded their sovereignty to the United States, and to be so far considered as corporations. Woodworth v. Janes, 2 Johns. Cas. 423. This clause only applies to those states that are members of the Union, and public bodies, owing obedience and conformity to its constitution and laws. Scott v. Jones, 5 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 Curt. Com. § 63.

(0) See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. Hano v. Louisiana, 24 Fed. Rep. 55. The 11th article of the amendments has forbidden suits by individual citizens against the

states.

(p) This clause does not embrace cases where one of the parties is a citizen of a territory or of the District of Columbia. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cr. 445. New Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91. Citizenship, when spoken of in the constitution in reference to the jurisdiction of the federal courts, means nothing more than residence. Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 W. C. C. 546. Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163. Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 W. C. C. 101. 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 Railroad Co. v. Letson, 2 How. 497. Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Co., 16 Ibid. 314. Wheeden v. Camden and Amboy Railroad Co., 1 Grant. 420. Greeley v. Smith, 3 Story 76. The judiciary act confines the jurisdiction, on the ground of citizenship, to cases where the suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is brought, and the 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, Paine 103. Hubbard v. Northern Railroad Co., 3 Bl. C. C. 84. (But see 1 R. S. § 737.) 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. 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. 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. Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593.

[blocks in formation]

within this clause, whether he sue in his own right, or as trustee, if he have a substantive interest as trustee. Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cr. 306. And if the nominal plaintiff, although a citizen, sue for the use of an alien, who is the real party in interest, the case is within the jurisdiction. Browne v. Strode, 5 Cr. 303. A foreign corporation is an alien for this purpose. Society v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464. But in all these cases, the opposite party must be a citizen, and this must appear from the record. Jackson v. Twentyman, 2 Pet. 136. A mere declaration of intention to become a citizen, under the naturalization laws, is not sufficient to prevent an alien from being regarded as a foreign subject, within the meaning of this clause. Baird v. Byrne, 3 Wall. Jr. C. C. 1.

(t) See ante 13, notes d and e.

(u) A state court has no jurisdiction of a suit against a consul; and whenever this defect of jurisdiction is suggested, the court will quash the proceedings. It is not necessary, that it should be by plea, before general imparlance. Manhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binn. 138. Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41; s. c. 7 Ibid. 276. Sagory v. Wissman, 2 Ben. 240. Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545. Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer 656. A consul may, however, be summoned as garnishee in an attachment from a state court. Kidderlin v. Meyer, 2 Miles 242. The jurisdiction of the supreme court, in suits against consuls, although original, is not exclusive of the circuit courts. Graham v. Stucken, 4 Bl. C. C. 50. Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252.

(v) The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a suit against a state. Gale v. Babcock, 4 W. C. C. 199. In such cases, the supreme court derives its original jurisdiction directly from the constitution. Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 66. A suit by or against the governor of a state, as such, in his official capacity, is a suit by or against the state. Ibid. New Jersey v. Babcock, 4 W. C. C. 344. A state, however, may be a plaintiff in a circuit court. Georgia v. Atkins, 35 Ga. 315; s. c. 1 Abb. U. S. 22.

(w) This is a negation of original jurisdiction in all other cases. Vallandighan's Case, 1 Wall. 243. 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. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 820. But if a case draw in question the laws, constitution or treaties of 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, 1 Ibid. 337. The grant of original jurisdiction to the supreme court is not necessarily exclusive. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449.

[blocks in formation]

(2) This does not constitute them judges of the law in criminal cases. United States v. Morris, 1 Curt. C. C. 23, 49. United States v. Shive, Bald. 510. United States v. Battiste, 2 Sum. 240. And see Townsend v. State, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 152. Pierce v. State,

13. N. H. 536. Commonwealth v. Porter, 10 Met. 263. Commonwealth v. Sherry, Wharton on Homicide, 481. It only embraces those crimes which by former laws and customs had been tried by jury. United States v. Duane, Wall. C. C. 106.

mitted; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place Art. 3. Sect. 2. or places as the congress may by law have directed.

53. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against Art. 3. Sect. 8. them. (a) or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same No person Treason. overt act, (b) or on confession in open court.

Witnesses.

54. The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. (c)

ARTICLE IV.

55. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records
and judicial proceedings of every other state. (d)
eral laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall
And the congress may, by gen-
be proved, and the effect thereof.(e)

56. The citizens of each state (g) shall be entitled to all privileges and immuni-
ties (h) of citizens in the several states. (i)

(a) There must be an actual levying of war; a conspiracy to subvert the government by force is not treason; nor is the mere enlistment of men, who are not assembled, a levying of war. 4 Cr. 75. United States v. Hanway, 2. Wall. Jr. C. C. Ex parte Bolman, 140. Ibid. 136. 4 Am. L. J. 83. And no man can be convicted of treason who was not present when the war was levied. 2 Burr's Trial 401, 439. States v. Greiner, 4 Phila. 396. See United

(b) This, it seems, refers to the proofs on the trial, and not to the preliminary hearing before the committing magistrate, or the proceeding before the grand inquest. 2 Wall. Jr. C. Č. 138. But see Fries's Trial, 14. Whart. St. Tr. 480. 1 Burr's Trial 196. (c) See United States v. Distillery, 2 Abb. U. S.

192.

(d) A judgment of a state court has the same credit, validity and effect, in every other court within the United States, which it had in the state where it was rendered. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234. The Sloop Davis, Crabbe 185. And it matters not that it was commenced by an attachment of property, if the defendant afterwards appeared and took defence. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129. judgments, so far as the court rendering them had Such jurisdiction, are to have in all courts full faith and credit, in which the merits of the judgment are never put in issue, with the qualification, that it appears by the record that the party had notice. Benton v. Bergot, 10 S. & R. 242. They have not, however, by the act of congress, full power and conclusive effect, but only such effect as they possessed in the state whence they were taken. Green v. Sarmiento, 3 W. C. C. 17. Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. Wiggins's Ferry Co. v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Co., 3 McCrary 609. And therefore, whatever pleas would be good therein, in such state, and none others, can be pleaded in any other court within the United States. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234. Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 484. Thus, it would be competent to show that the judgment was obtained by fraud; or that the court rendering it had no jurisdiction. Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Insurance Co., 2 Paine 502. Steel v. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447. Noble v. Thompson Oil Co., 79 Penn. St. 354. Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600. A state law which destroys the right of a party to enforce a judgment regularly obtained in another state is unconstitutional. Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290.

(e) See 1 R. S. § 905. The legislation of congress amounts to this-that the judgment of another state shall be record evidence of the demand, and that the defendant, when sued on the judgment, cannot go behind it, and controvert the contract, or other cause of action, on which the judgment is founded; that it is evidence of an established demand, which, standing alone, is conclusive between the parties to it. Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. The constitutional provision only applies to its effect as evidence. Claflin v. McDermott, 20 Bl. C. C. 522. Brengle v. McClellan, 7 Gill & Johns. 434. Joice v. Scales, 18 Ga. 725. Shelton v. Johnson, 4 Sneed 672. (g) This does not apply to corporations. Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Insurance Co., 2 Paine 502. People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68. 3 Zabr. 429. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. Ducat v. Tatem v. Wright,

Warren

Ibid.

Punishment.

Art. 4. Sect. 1. State records, &c. Art. 4. Sect. 2. Privileges of citi

zens.

Chicago, 10 Ibid. 410. Liverpool Insurance Co. v.
Massachusetts, Ibid. 566. Since the adoption of the
constitution, no state can, by any subsequent law,
citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the
make a foreigner, or any other description of persons,
rights and privileges secured to citizens by that in-
strument.
Anon., 21 Law Rep. 630.
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393.

nities which are, in their nature, jundamental; which
(h) This is confined to those privileges and immu-
ments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by
belong, of right, to the citizens of all free govern-
the citizens of the several states which compose the
pendent and sovereign. They may be all compre-
Union, from the time of their becoming free, inde-
hended under the following general heads: protection
by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty,
kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety,
with the right to acquire and possess property of every
subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the govern-
ment may justly prescribe for the general good of the
through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes
whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass
of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits or other-
wise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas cor-
pus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in
property, either real or personal; and an exemption
the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of
from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the
other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some
of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens,
which are clearly embraced by the general description
of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may
established by the laws or constitution of the state in
be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and
which it is to be exercised. Corfield v. Coryell, 4
W. C. C. 380-1. A state law imposing a higher license
tax upon non-residents selling goods by sample, than
upon resident dealers, is a violation of this clause of
the constitution. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418.
Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275. Ex parte Watson,
15 Fed. Rep. 511. And see Guy v. Baltimore, 100
U. S. 134. Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 553-4.
Duer v. Small, 4 Bl. C. C. 263. It does not embrace
privileges conferred by the local laws of a state. Con-
representation or election. Murray v. McCarty, 2
ner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591. Such as the rights of
Munf. 393. 121 U. S. 444. Lemmon v. People, 20
N. Y. 608.

(i) A citizen of the United States; residing in any state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. leges of a citizen of that state, but does not carry with v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 762. He is entitled to all the priviGassies him any rights enjoyed under the laws of another founded on domicil; such a person has the same rights state. The clause has nothing to do with distinctions under the state laws, which a native-born citizen, domiciled elsewhere, would have, and no other rights. Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 608. But since the adoption of the 14th amendment, one born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is, without reference to state constitutions or laws, entitled to all the privileges and immunities secured by the constitution to its citizens. United States v. Hall, 13 Int. R. Rec. 181; s. c. 3 Chicago Leg. News 260. Nevertheless, a state law, prohibiting marriage be

Art. 4. Sect. 2. Fugitives from justice.

Ibid.

Fugitives from labor.

Art. 4. Sect. 3. New states.

Ibid.

Territories.

Art. 4. Sect. 4. Republican form of government, &c., guaranteed.

Art. 5. Amendments.

57. A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, (k) who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, (1) be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime. (m)

58. No person held to service or labor (n) in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

59. New states may be admitted by the congress into this Union:(0) but no new state shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, (p) as well as of the

congress.

60. The congress shall have power to dispose of (q) and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory (r) or other property belonging to the United States; (s) and nothing in this constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

61. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence.

ARTICLE V.

62. The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution,(t) or, on the application of the

tween negroes and white persons, is not unconstitutional. Ex parte Hobbs, 1 Woods 537. Pace v. Alabama, 106 U. S. 583.

(k) It is not necessary, that the crime charged should constitute an offence at the common law. Ex parte Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311. It is enough, that it is a crime against the laws of the state from which he fled. Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 66. Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97. Ex parte Clark, 9 Wend. 221. Commonwealth v. Daniel, 4 Clark 49. Hayward's Case, 1 Am. L. J. 231.

(1) A fugitive from justice may be arrested and detained until a formal requisition can be made by the proper authority. Commonwealth v. Deacon, 10 S. & R. 135. Dows's Case, 18 P. S. 39. Ex parte Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311.

(m) The alleged crime must have been committed in the state from which the party is claimed to be a fugitive; and he must be actually a fugitive from that state. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean 133. Hayward's Cuse, 1 Am. L. J. 231. Ex parte Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311. (n) This includes apprentices. Boaler v. Cummines, 5 Clark 246.

(0) The territorial legislatures cannot, without permission from congress, pass laws authorizing the formation of constitutions and state governments. All measures commenced and prosecuted with a design to subvert the territorial government, and to establish and put in force in its place a new government, without the consent of congress, are unlawful. But the people of any territory may peaceably meet together in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen for such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning congress to abrogate the territorial government, and to admit them into the Union as an independent state, and if they accompany their petition with a constitution framed and agreed on by their primary assemblies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such assemblies, there is no objection to their power to do so, nor to any measures which may be taken to collect the sense of the people in respect to it; provided such measures be prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in subordination to the existing government, and in subserviency to the power of congress to adopt, reject or disregard them, at their pleasure. 2 Opin. 726.

(p) It requires the consent of a legislature representing and governing the whole, and not merely a part, of the state proposed to be divided. 10 Opin. 426.

(q) The power of congress to "dispose of" the public lands, is not limited to making sales, they may be leased. United States v. Gratiot, 1 McLean 454; s. c. 14 Pet. 526. 4 Opin. 487. But no property belonging to the United States can be disposed of, except by the authority of an act of congress. United States v. Nicoll, 1 Paine 646.

(r) The term "territory," as here used, is merely descriptive of one kind of property, and is equivalent to the word "lands." United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. 537. This clause applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the states when they were colonies of Great Britain. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present federal government, by treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 395.

(s) The power of governing a territory belonging to the United States, which has not, by becoming a state, acquired the means of self-government, has been said to result necessarily from the facts that it is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United States. The right to govern would seem to be the inevitable consequence of the right to acquire territory. American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 542-3. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Ibid. 537. Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 194. National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U. S. 129. Congress has the constitutional power to pass laws punishing Indians for crimes and offences committed against the United States. The Indian tribes are not so far independent nations as to be exempt from this kind of legislation. United States v. Cha-to-kah-na-pe-sah, Hemp. 27. When the country occupied by one of the Indian tribes is not within a state, congress may enact laws to punish offences committed there, either by white persons or Indians. United States v. Rogers, 4 How. 567. And see United States v. Tobacco Factory, 13 Int. R. Rec. 91. The United States, under the present constitution, cannot acquire territory to be held as a colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a population that fits it to become a state, and may govern it as a territory, until it has a population which, in the judgment of congress, entitles it to be admitted as a state of the Union. During the time it remains a territory, congress may legislate over it, within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United States and may establish a territorial government-and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of congress but with powers not exceeding those which congress itself, by the constitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States, for their common and equal benefit. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 395.

(t) Such proposed amendment need not be presented to the president for his approval. Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »