Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

Ibid.

Art. 2. Sect. 2. nominate,(0) and by and with the advice and consent of the senate,(p) shall

appoint(9) ambassadors, other public ministers(r) and consuls, judges of the Appointing power.

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,(C) as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

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, Impeachments.

shall be removed from office, on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.(y)

Powers to fill vacancies.

Art. 2. Sect. 3.

Further powers.

Ibid.

ARTICLE III.

Art. 3. Sect. 1.

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

Judiciary.

(0) The nomination and appointment are voluntary Attorney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. c. 8 Int. R. Rec. acts, and distinct fro the commissioning. Marbury 137. People v. Fanchon, 50 N. Y. 288. v. Madison, 1 Cr. 155-6. Even after confirmation, (v) The commission of an officer appointed during the president may, in his discretion, withhold a com- a recess, who is afterwards nominated and rejected, mission; and until a commission has been signed, the is not thereby determined; it continues in force until appointment is not fully consummated. 4 Opin. 218. the end of the next session, unless sooner determined

(p) The senate cannot originate an appointment; by the president., Marshulship of Alabama, 20 Fed. its constitutional action is contined to a simple attir- Rep. 379. 2 Opin. 336. 4 Ibid. 30. mation or rejection of the president's nominations; (w) If hostilities be actually waged against the conand such nominations fall whenever it disagrees to stitution and laws, and assume the dimensions of a them. 3 Opin. 188. Congress have no power to en- general war, it is the duty of the president to proselarge the term of one holding for a fixed period. cute opposing hostilities, offensive as well as defensive, District Attorney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. C. 8 upon such a proportional scale as may be necessary to Int. R. Rec. 137.

re-establish or to support and maintain the govern(9) The power of the president to appoint to office, ment. The General Parkhill, U. S. Dist. Court, 3. Penn. necessarily includes the power to remove all officers 19 July 1861. As incident to this power, he has authority appointed and commissioned by him, where the con- to appoint commissioners and agents to make investigastitution has not otherwise provided. Therefore, he tions required by acts or resolutions of congress; but may remove a territorial judge, in his discretion. cannot pay them, except from an appropriation for 5 Opin. 288. 3 Ibid. 673. 4 Ibid. 603, 608-9. 4 Elli- that purpose. 4 Opin. 248. It is not, in general, ott's Debates 350. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 259. judicious for him, in the exercise of this power, to This power is restrained by the act of 5 April 1869. interfere with the functions of subordinate officers 16 Stat. 6; 1 R. S. § 1768.

further than to remove them for any neglect or abuse (1) This gives him power to appoint diplomatic of their official trust. 5 Opin. 287. But where comagents of any rank, at any place, and at any time, binations exist among the citizens of one of the states in his discretion, subject to the approbation of the to obstruct or defeat the execution of acts of consenate; and this power cannot be limited by act of gress, and the question of the constitutionality of such congress. 7 Opin. 186.

laws is made in suits against a marshal of the United (8) The effect of this and the other clauses in the States, the president is justified in assuming his constitution on the subject of appointments to office, defence on behalf of the United States. 6 Opin. 220, is to declare that all ottices under the federal govern- 500. The president cannot be restrained, by injuncment, except in cases where the constitution itself tion, from carrying into effect an act of congress, on may otherwise provide, shall be established by law. the ground of its alleged unconstitutionality. Missis. United States v. Maurice, 2 Brock. 96.

sippi v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475. (t) Clerks of courts are such officers; and in such (2) A senator or representative in congress is not cases, the power of removal is incident to the power such civil ofticer. Blount's Trial 22, 102. Whart. of appointment. Ex parte Hennen, 13 Pet. 230, 259. St. Tr. 260, 316. 1 Story Const. $$ 793, 802.

Nor is a And see Gratiot v. United States, 1 Ct. Cl. 258. territorial judge, not being a constitutional, but a United States v. Avery, 1 Deady 201.

legislative officer only. 3 Opin. 409. (u) He has no power, during a recess of the senate, (y) No previous statute is necessary to authorize to fill a vacancy that occurred, by expiration of com- an impeachment for any official misconduct. What mission, during a previous session. District Attor- are, and what are not high crimes and misdemeanors, ney's Case, 16 Am. L. R. 786; s. C. 8 Int. R. Rec. 137. is to be ascertained by a recurrence to the rules of the Contrà Ex parte Farrow, 4 Woods 491. Nor can he common law. 1 Story Const. § 799. For the rules of make an original appointment, during the recess, to proceeding prescribed in cases of impeachment, see an office created at the previous session. Schenck v. Peck's Trial 56-9; 1 Johns. Trial 13. Peay, 1 Dill. 268. People v. Forquer, Breese 68. Ex (2) The jurisdiction of the courts of the United parte Dodd, 11 Ark. 152. Serg. Const. Law 373. See States depends exclusively on the constitution and Story Const. § 1559. (Clarke v. Irwin, 5 Nev. 112, laws of the United States. Livingston v. Jefferson, contrà.) Nor can he fill a vacancy, which occurred 1 Brock. 203. See American Insurance Co. v. Canter, during a previous recess, a session of the senate 1 Pet. 511. 1 Curt. Com. $ 4. United States v. Drenhaving intervened. Johns's Case, cited 1 Cong. Elect. nen, Hemp. 320. United States v. Alberty, Ibid. 444. Cas. 874. Williams's Case, 2 Ibid. 612. Phelps's Case, They are not regarded, in the state courts, as courts Ibid. 613. As to what is deemed a session of the of another sovereign. Commonwealth v. Pittsburgh senate, and what is deemed a recess, see District and Connellsville Ruilroad Co., 58 P. S. 26, 43.

Art. 3. Sect. 1.

and establish.(a) The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior;(6) and shall

, at stated times, receive for their Tenure and comservices a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in pensation. office.(c).

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

Judicial powers.

وو

(a) Congress having the power to establish inferior federal constitution was adopted; neither does it courts, must as a necessary consequence have the extend, under the constitution and laws of congress, right to define their respective jurisdictions. Sheldon to all cases which would fall within its cognizance, v. Sill, 8 How. 448–9. "See Osborn v. United States according to the civil law, and the practice and usages Bank, 9 Wheat. 738.

of continental Europe. Cunningham v. Hall, 1 Cliff. (6) Courts in which the judges hold their offices 43. And see Insurance Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. for a specific number of years, are not constitutional This jurisdiction extends to the navigable lakes and courts, in which the judicial powers conferred by the rivers of the United States, without regard to the constitution can be deposited. American Insurance ebb and flow of the tides of the ocean. The Genesee Cv. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546,

Chief, 12 How. 443. The Hine, 4 Wall. 555.

The (c) This prohibits the imposition of a tax upon a Magnolia, 20 How. 296. Nelson v. Leland, 22 Ibid. judge's salary. Commonwealth v. Vann, 5 W. & S. 56. It embraces all maritime contracts, whereso415. Nor is it competent for congress to impose a tax ever the same may be made or executed, and what. upon the salary of a state judge. Collector v. Day, 11 ever may be the form of the stipulations; and also all Wall. 113.

torts and injuries committed upon waters within its (d) A “ case" arises, within the meaning of the jurisdiction. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. Insurance constitution, whenever any question respecting the Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. Chamberlain v. Chundconstitution, laws or treaties of the United States, ler, 3 Mas. 242. Hale v. Washington Insurance Co., 2 has assumed such a form, that the judicial power is Story 176. Gloucester Insurance Co. v. Younger,' 2 capable of acting on it. Osborn v. United States Curt. C. C. 322. Philadelphia and Havre de Grace Bank, 9 Wheat. 819. And see Tennessee v. Davis, 100 Tow-Boat Co. v. Philadelphia, Wilmington and BalU.S. 257.

timore Railroad Co., 5 Am. L. R. 280. All crimes and (p) By cases in law" are to be understood suits offences against the laws of the United States. Cora in which legal rights are to be ascertained and deter- field v. Coryell, 4 W. C. C. 371. United States v. mined, in contradistinction to those where equitable Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336. And all cases of seizures for rights alone are recognized, and equitable remedies breaches of the revenue laws, and those made in the administered; or where the proceeding is in the ad- exercise of the rights of war. The Vengeance, 3 Dall. miralty. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447. Robinson 297. The Sally, 2 Cr. 400. The Betsey, 4 Ibid. 413. v. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 212. Irvine v. Marshall, 20 The Samuel, 1 Wheat. 9. The Octavia, Ibid. 20. Nevo How. 565.

Jersey Steam Navigation Co. v. Merchants' Bank, 6 (9) By “cases in equity,'' are to be understood How. 344. The admiralty has also jurisdiction of suits in which relief is sought according to the suits for repairs and necessaries furnished to ships in principles and practice of the equity jurisdiction as a foreign port, or in the ports of a state to which they established in English jurisprudence. Robinson y; do not belong. The General Smith, 4 Wheat. 438. Campbell, 3 Wheat. 222-3. United States v. Howland, Peyroux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324. The Nestor, 1 Sum. 4 Ibid. 108. Lorman v. Clarke, 2 McLean 570-1. 73. The Chusan, 2 Story 455. The Medora, 2 W. & Lannon v. Clark, 4 Ibid. 18. Gordon v. Hobart, 2 M. 92. Davis v. Child, Dav. 71. The President, 4 Sum. 401. Pratt v. Northam, 5 Mas. 95. Cropper v. W. C. C. 453. The Eagle, Bee 78. The John Walls, Coburn, 2 Curt. C. C. 465. And see 1 Curt. Com. 1 Spr. 178. The Sarah Starr, Ibid. 453. But it does $ 27-9.

not extend to cases where a lien is claimed for re(h) A case is said to "arise" under the constitu- pairs or supplies furnished to a vessel in her home tion or a law of the United States, whenever its cor- port. People's Ferry Co. v. Beers, 20 How. 393. rect decision depends on the construction of either. Roach v. Chapman, 22 Ibid. 129. The St. Laurence, Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 379. A bill in equity to 1 Bl. 522. The admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon enforce specific performance of a contract to convey the federal courts, by the constitution, is exclusive of a patent, is not a case arising under the laws of the the state conrts. The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411. The United States” as to patents, so as alone to give Hine, Ibid. 556. The Belfast, 7 Ibid. 624. The Kinnie, jurisdiction to its courts. Nesmith v. Calvert, 1 w. 17 Am. L. R. 470. The Dubuque, 3 Chicago Leg. News & M. 34.

145. Ferran v. Hosford, 54 Barb. 200. Albany City (i) The federal courts have jurisdiction of all suits Insurance Co. v. Whitney, 70 Penn. St. 248.

See note * affecting" public ministers, although they may not to 4 Wheat. 414, as to the jurisdiction of the admibe parties to the record. Osborn v. United States ralty to enforce liens upon vessels created by the state Bank, 9 Wheat. 854-5. See United States v. Ortega, law. 11 Wheat. 467. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297. (m) Congress never having authorized suits to be Gittings v. Crawford, Tan. Dec. 1. Sagory v. Wiss- brought against the United States, no such action can man, 2 Ben. 240.

be commenced or prosecuted. Cohens v. Virginia, (k) The recognition of the executive of the United 6 Wheat. 411-12. See Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken States is conclusive as to the public character of the Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 283. United party. Dupont v. Pichon, 4 Dall. 321. United States States v. McLemore, 4 Ibid. 256. Hill v. United States, v. Ortega, 4 W. C. C. 531.

9 Ibid. 386. But this does not prevent the exercise of (1) This embraces what was known and understood appellate jurisdiction, to obtain by writ of error a in the United States, as the admiralty and maritime reversal of a judgment which has been rendered in jurisdiction, at the time when the constitution was favor of the United States. Ibid.

Nor does it preadopted. The Genesee Chief, 12 How. 443. New Jer- clude individuals, when sued by the United States, xey Steam Navigation Co.v. Merchants' Bank, 6 Ibid. from availing themselves of credits or set-offs against 341. Waring v. Clarke, 5 Ibid. 441. The Betsina, 5 the United States. United States v. Bank of MetropAm. L. R. 408. The Huntress, Daveis 83. The olis, 15 Pet. 392. The sovereign power is not, by Young America, 1 Newb. 101. The Golden Gate, 6 virtue of its prerogative, exempted from the operaAm. L. R. 296; s. c. Newb. 308. The line, 4 Wall. tion of any general statutes, except those of limita555. The jurisdiction of the admiralty courts in this tion. United States v. Tetlou, 2 Low. 159. See acts country, at the time of the revolution, and for a cen- erecting the Court of Claims, 1 R. S. $ 1059. tury before, was more extensive than that of the high (n) This includes a suit brought by one state court of admiralty in England. Ibid. It is not lim- against another, to determine a question of disputed ited to the particular subjects over which it was exer- boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. cised in the English courts of admiralty, when the 657. The individual states having submitted their

Art. 3. Sect. 2.

Ibid.

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

51. In all cases affecting ambassadors, (1) other public ministers and consuls(u) Jurisdiction of the and those in which a state shall be a party; (v) the supreme court shall have origi

nal jurisdiction.(w) In all the other cases before mentioned, (2) 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;(2) and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been com

supreme court.

Ibid.

Trial for crimes.

interfering territorial claims to the judiciary of the within this clause, whether he sue in his own right, or United States, are, in respect to those rights, to be as trustee, if he have a substantive interest as trustee. deemed to have ceded their sovereignty to the United Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux, 4 Cr. 306. And if the States, and to be so far considered as corporations. nominal plaintiff, although a citizen, sue for the use of Woodworth v. Janes, 2 Johns. Cas. 423. This clause an alien, who is the real party in interest, the case is only applies to those states that are members of the within the jurisdiction. Brovne v. Strode, 5 Cr. 303. Union, and public bodies, owing obedience and con- A foreign corporation is an alien for this purpose. formity to its constitution and laws. Scott v. Jones, Society v. New Haren, 8 Wheat. 461. But in all 5 How. 377. And a state is within the operation of these cases, the opposite party must be a citizen, and this clause only when it is a party to the record, as a this must appear from the record. Jackson v. Twenplaintiff or defendant, in its political capacity. 08- tyman, 2 Pet. 136. A mere declaration of intention born v. United States Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. i Curt. to become a citizen, under the naturalization laws, is Com. § 63.

not sufficient to prevent an alien from being regarded (0) See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont as a foreign subject, within the meaning of this Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. Hano v. Louisiana, 24 Fed. clause. Baird v. Byrne, 3 Wall. Jr. C. C. 1. Rep. 55. The 11th article of the amendments has (1) See ante 13, notes d and e. forbidden suits by individual citizens against the (u) A state court has no jurisdiction of a suit states.

against a consul; and whenever this defect of juris(p) This clause does not embrace cases where one diction is suggested, the court will quash the proceedof the parties is a citizen of a territory or of the ings. It is not necessary, that it should be by plea, District of Columbia. Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cr. 445. before general imparlance. Manhardt v. Soderstrom, Nero Orleans v. Winter, 1 Wheat. 91. Citizenship, 1 Binn. 138. Davis v. Packard, 6 Pet. 41; S. c. 7 when spoken of in the constitution in reference to the Ibid. 276. Sagory v. Wissman, 2 Ben. 210. Commonjurisdiction of the federal courts, means nothing more

wealth v.

Koslott, 5 S. & R. 515. Griffin v. Dominguez, ihan residence. Cooper v. Galbraith, 3 W. C. C. 546. 2 Duer 656. A consul may, however, be summoned as Gassies v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 761. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 garnishee in an attachment from a state court. KidHow. 163. Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 W. C. Č. 101. derlin v. Meyer, 2 Miles 242. The jurisdiction of the A corporation created by, and transacting business in, supreme court, in suits against consuls, although origa state, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the state, inal, is not exclusive of the circuit courts. Graham capable of being treated as a citizen, for all purposes v. Stuchen, 4 BI. C. C. 50. Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. of suing and being sued. Louisville Railroad Co. v. 252. Letson, 2 How. 497. Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio (v) The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a suit Railroad Co., 16 Ibid. 314. Wheeden v. Camden and against a state. Gale v. Babcock, 4 W.C.C. 199. In Amboy Railroad Co., 1 Grant. 420. Greeley v. Smith, such cases, the supreme court derives its original juris3 Story 76. The judiciary act confines the jurisdic- diction directly from the constitution. Kentucky v. tion, on the ground of citizenship, to cases where the Ohio, 24 How. 66. A suit by or against the governor suit is between a citizen of a state where the suit is of a state, as such, in his official capacity, is a suit by brought, and the citizen of another state; and al- or against the state. Ibid. New Jersey v. Babcock, though the constitution gives a broader extent to the 4 W, C. C. 314. A state, however, may be a plaintiff judicial power, the actual jurisdiction of the circuit in a circuit court. Georgia v. Atkins, 35 Ga. 315; s.c. courts is governed by the act of congress. Moffat v. 1 Abb. U. S. 22. Soley, 2 Paine 103. Hubbard v. Northern Railroad (w) This is a negation of original jurisdiction in all Co., 3 Bl. C. C. 84. (But see 1 R. S. § 737.) So, other cases. Vallandighan's Case, 1 Wall. 243. In too, in the same act, there is an exception, that where those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to suit is brought in favor of an assignee, there shall be the supreme court, founded on the character of the no jurisdiction, unless suit could have been brought parties, the judicial power of the United States cannot in the courts of the United States, had no assignment be exercised in its appellate form. Osborn v. Bank been made; this is a restriction on the jurisdiction of the United States, 9 Wheat. 820. But if a case draw conferred by the constitution; and yet, this provision in question the laws, constitution or treaties of the has been sustained by the supreme court, since its United States, though a state be a party, the jurisdicorganization. Brainard v. Williams, 4 McLean 122. tion of the federal courts is appellate; for, in such Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441. The constitution has case, the jurisdiction is founded, not upon the characdefined the limits of the judicial power, but has not ter of the parties, but upon the nature of the controprescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the versy. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 392. Martin v. circuit courts. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Hunter, 1 Ibid. 337. The grant of original jurisdicDall. 10. McIntyre v. Wood, 7 Cr. 506. Kendall v. tion to the supreme court is not necessarily exclusive. United States, 12 Pet. 616. Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449. 245. It is well understood by those experienced in the (2) Congress has no power to confer original jurisjurisprudence of the United States, that congress has diction on the supreme court, in other cases than those conferred upon the federal courts but a portion of the enumerated in this section. Marbury v. Madison, 1 jurisdiction contemplated by the constitution. Clarke Cr. 137. Ex parte Metzger, 5 How. 176, 191-2. Ex v. Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593.

parte Kaine, 14 Ibid. 119. (9) Cases of grants made by different states are (y) The supreme court has no power to review, by within the jurisdiction, notwithstanding one of the certiorari, the proceedings of a military commission. states, at the time of the first graut, was part of the Ex parte Vallandigham, 1 Wall. 243. other. Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292. It is (2) This does not constitute them judges of the the grant which passes the legal title, and if the con- law in criminal cases. United States v. Morris, 1 troversy be founded upon the conflicting grants of Curt. C. C. 23, 49. United States v. Shive, Bald. 510. different states, the federal courts have jurisdiction, United States v. Battiste, 2 Sum. 240. And see Townwhatever may have been the prior equitable title of spnd v. State, 2 Blacks. (Ind.) 152. Pierce v. State, the parties. Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377.

13. N. H. 536. Commonwealth v. Porter, 10 Met. 263. (1) An Indian tribe or nation, within the United Commonwealth v. Sherry, Wharton on Homicide, 481. States, is not a “foreign state," within the meaning It only embraces those crimes which by former laws of this clause. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1. and customs had been tried by jury. United States v.

(s) If the party to the record be an alien, he is Duane, Wall. C. C. 106.

Art. 3. Sect. 3.

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 them,(a) or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No

person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act,(6) or on confession in open court.

5t. 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)

Treason.
Witnesses.

Ibid.

Punishinent.

Art. 4. Sect. 1.

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) And the congress may, by gen, state records, &c. eral laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.(e) 56. The citizens of each state (g) shall be entitled to all privileges and immuni

Privileges of citities(h) of citizens in the several states.(i)

Art. 4. Sect. 2.

zens,

(a) There must be an actual levying of war; a con- Chicago, 10 Ibid. 410. Liverpool Insurance Co. v. spiracy to subvert the government by force is not Massachusetts, Ibid. 566. Since the adoption of the treason; nor is the mere enlistment of men, who are constitution, no state can, by any subsequent law, not assembled, a levying of war. Ex parte Bolman, make a foreigner, or any other description of persons, 4 Cr. 75. United States v. Hanway, 2. Wall. Jr. C. C. citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the 110. Ibid. 136. 4 Am. L. J. 83. And no man can be rights and privileges secured to citizens by that inconvicted of treason who was not present when the strument. Dred Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 393. war was levied. 2 Burr's Trial 401, 439. See United Anon., 21 Law Rep. 630. States v. Greiner, 4 Phila. 396.

(N) This is contined to those privileges and immu(0) This, it seems, refers to the proofs on the trial, nities which are, in their nature, fundamental; which and not to the preliminary hearing before the com- belong, of right, to the citizens of all free governmitting magistrate, or the proceeding before the grand ments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by inquest. 2 Wall. Jr. C. C. 138. 1 Burr's Trial 196. the citizens of the several states which compose the But see Fries's Trial, 14. Whart. St. Tr. 480.

Union, from the time of their becoming free, inde(c) See United States v. Distillery, 2 Abb. U. S. pendent and sovereign. They may be all compre192.

hended under the following general heads : protection (d) A judgment of a state court has the same by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, credit, validity and effect, in every other court within with the right to acquire and possess property of every the United States, which it had in the state where it kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, was rendered. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234. subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the governThe Sloop Davis, Crabbe 185. And it matters not ment may justly prescribe for the general good of the that it was commenced by an attachment of property, whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass if the defendant afterwards appeared and took de- through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes fence. Mayhew v. Thatcher, 6 Wheat. 129. Such of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits or otherjudgments, so far as the court rendering them bad wise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corjurisdiction, are to have in all courts full faith and pus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in credit, in which the merits of the judgment are never the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of put in issue, with the qualification, that it appears by property, either real or personal; and an exemption the record that the party had notice. Benton v. Ber- from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the yot, 10 S. & R. 242. They have not, however, by the other citizens of the state; may be mentioned as some act of congress, full power and conclusive effect, but of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens, only such effect as they possessed in the state whence which are clearly embraced by the general description they were taken. Green v. Sarmiento, 3 W. C. C. 17. of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which may Bank of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. be added, the elective franchise, as regulated and Wiggins's Ferry Co. v. Chicago and Alton Railroad established by the laws or constitution of the state in C0., 3 McCrary 609. And therefore, whatever pleas which it is to be exercised. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 would be good therein, in such state, and none others, W. C. C. 380-1. A state law imposing a higher license can be pleaded in any other court within the United tax upon non-residents selling goods by sample, than States. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wheat. 234. Jills upon resident dealers, is a violation of this clause of v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 484. Thus, it would be competent to the constitution. Ward v. Maryland, 12 Wall. 418. show that the judgment was obtained by fraud; or Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275. Ex parte Watson, that the court rendering it had no jurisdiction. War- 15 Fed. Rep. 511. And see Guy V. Baltimore, 100 ren Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Insurance Co., 2 U. S. 134. *Campbell v. Morris, 3 H. & McH. 553-4. Paine 502. Steel v. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447. Noble v. Duer v. Small, 4 Bl. C. C. 263. It does not embrace Thompson Oil Co., 79 Penn. St. 351. Pennywit v. privileges conferred by the local laws of a state. ConFoote, 27 Ohio St. 600. A state law which destroys ner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591. Such as the rights of the right of a party to enforce a judgment regularly representation or election. Murray V. McCarty, 2 obtained in another state is unconstitutional. Christ- Munf. 393. 121 U. S. 44. Lemmon v. People, 20 mas v. Russell, 5 Wall. 290.

N. Y. 608. (e) See 1 R. S. $ 905. The legislation of congress (i) A citizen of the United States; residing in any amounts to this — that the judgment of another state state of the Union, is a citizen of that state. Gassies shall be record evidence of the demand, and that the v. Ballon, 6 Pet. 702. He is entitled to all the prividefendant, when sued on the judgment, cannot go leges of a citizen of that state, but does not carry with behind it, and controvert the contract, or other cause him any rights enjoyed under the laws of another of action, on which the judgment is fou ed; that it state. The clause lias nothing to do with distinctions is evidence of an established demand, which, standing founded on domicil; such a person has the same rights alone, is conclusive between the parties to it. Bank under the state laws, which a native-born citizen, of the State of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How. 528. The domiciled elsewhere, would have, and no other rights. constitutional provision only applies to its effect as Lemmon v. People, 20 N. Y. 608. But since the adopevidence. Claflin v. McDermott, 20 Bl. C. °C. 522. tion of the 14th amendment, one born or naturalized Brengle v. McClellan, 7 Gill & Johns. 434. Joice v. in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, is, Scales, 18 Ga. 725. Shelton v. Johnson, 4 Sneed 672. without reference to state constitutions or laws, en

(9) This does not apply to corporations. Warren titled to all the privileges and immunities secured by Manufacturing Co. v. Eina Insurance Co., 2 Paine the constitution to its citizens. United States v. Hall, 502. People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68. Tatem v.Wright, 13 Int. R. Rec. 181; s. c. 3 Chicago Leg. News 260. 3 Zabr. 129. Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168. Ducat v. Nevertheless, a state law, prohibiting marriage becrimes and offences committed against the United (0) The territorial legislatures cannot, without per- States. The Indian tribes are not so far independent mission from congress, pass laws authorizing the for- nations as to be exempt from this kind of legislation. mation of constitutions and state governments. All United States v. Cha-to-kah-na-pe-sah, Hemp. 27. measures commenced and prosecuted with a design to When the country occupied by one of the Indian subvert the territorial government, and to establish tribes is not within a state, congress may enact laws and put in force in its place a new government, with- to punish offences committed there, either by white out the consent of congress, are unlawful. But the persons or Indians. United States v. Rogers, 4 How. people of any territory may peaceably meet together 567. And see United States v. Tobacco Factory, 13 in primary assemblies, or in conventions chosen for Int. R. Rec. 91. The United States, under the present such assemblies, for the purpose of petitioning con- constitution, cannot acquire territory to be held as a gress to abrogate the territorial government, and to colony, to be governed at its will and pleasure. But admit them into the Union as an independent state, it may acquire territory which, at the time, has not a and if they accompany their petition with a constitu- population that fits it to become a state, and may tion framed and agreed on by their primary assem- govern it as a territory, until it has a population blies, or by a convention of delegates chosen by such which, in the judgment of congress, entitles it to be assemblies, there is no objection to their power to do admitted as a state of the Union. During the time so, nor to any measures which may be taken to collect it remains a territory, congress may legislate over it, the sense of the people in respect to it; provided such within the scope of its constitutional powers in relameasures be prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in tion to citizens of the United States – and may essubordination to the existing government, and in sub- tablish a territorial government- and the form of serviency to the power of congress to adopt, reject or this local government must be regulated by the discredisregard them, at their pleasure. 2 Opin. 726.

Art. 4. Sect. 2.

Ibid.

labor.

Art. 4. Sect. 3.

New states.

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 execuFugitives from justice.

tive authority of the state from which he fled, (I) 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 Fugitives from

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;($) 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 Republican form of government,

application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be &c., guaranteed. convened), against domestic violence.

Ibid.

Territories.

Art. 4. Sect. 4.

Art. 5.

ARTICLE V. 62. The congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this constitution, (1) or, on the application of the

Amendments.

tween negroes and white persons, is not unconstitu- (r) The term “territory," as here used, is merely tional. Ex parte Hobbs, 1 Woods 537. Pace v. descriptive of one kind of property, and is equivalent Alabama, 106 U. S. 583.

to the word “lands." United States v. Gratiot, 14 Pet. (k) It is not necessary, that the crime charged 537. This clause applies only to territory within the should constitute an offence at the common law. Ex chartered limits of some one of the states when they parte Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311. It is enough, that it is a were colonies of Great Britain. It does not apply to crime against the laws of the state from which he fled. territory acquired by the present federal government, Kentucky v. Ohio, 24 How. 66., Johnston v. Riley, 13 by treaty or conquest, from a foreign nation. Dred Ga. 97. Ex parte Clark, 9 Wend. 221. Common- Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 395. wealth v. Daniel, 4 Clark 49. Ilayward's Case, 1 (s) The power of governing a territory belonging Am. L. J. 231.

to the United States, which has not, by becoming a (1) A fugitive from justice may be arrested and state, acquired the means of self-government, has detained until a formal requisition can be made by been said to result necessarily from the facts that it the proper authority. Comimonwealth v. Deacon, 10 is not within the jurisdiction of any particular state, S. & R. 135. Dows's Case, 18 P. S. 39. Ex parte and is within the power and jurisdiction of the United Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311.

States. The right to govern would seem to be the (m) The alleged crime must have been committed inevitable consequence of the right to acquire terin the state from which the party is claimed to be a ritory. American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. fugitive; and he must be actually a fugitive from that 542-3. United States v. Gratiot, 14 Ibid. 537. Cross state. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean 133. Hayward's v. Harrison, 16 How. 194. National Bank v. County Cuse, 1 Am. L. J. 231. Ex parte Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311. of Yankton, 101 U. S. 129. Congress has the consti

(n) This includes apprentices. Boaler v. Cum- tutional power to pass laws punishing Indians for mines, 5 Clark 246.

tion of congress but with powers not exceeding (p) It requires the conser of a legislature repre- those which congress itself, by the constitution, is senting and governing the whole, and not merely a authorized to exercise over citizens of the United part, of the state proposed to be divided. 10 Opin. States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of 426.

property. The territory thus acquired, is acquired (9) The power of congress to “dispose of” the by the people of the United States, for their common public lands, is not limited to making sales, they may and equal benefit. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. be leased. United States v. Gratiot, 1 McLean 454; 395. s. c. 14 Pet. 526. 4 Opin. 487. But no property be- (1) Such proposed amendment need not be prelonging to the United States can be disposed of, ex- sented to the president for his approval. Hollingscept by the authority of an act of congress. United worth v. Virginia, 3 Dall. 378. States v. Nicoll, 1 Paine 646.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »