the question was raised, but not decided, but in Börs v. Preston,84 it was determined, that the Congress might confer a concurrent original jurisdiction upon the circuit courts of the United States in actions against consuls of foreign states.85 The Supreme Court may also issue writs of prohibition to the admiralty courts,86 and writs of mandamus 87 in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law." 88

The original jurisdiction of the subordinate courts of the United States, excepting the circuit courts of appeal, which have no original jurisdiction,89 is, in the main, as follows:

On the civil side, the circuit courts have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the courts of the states, of all suits at common law, or in equity, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds two thousand dollars, first, where the controversy arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States; second, where the controversy is between citizens of different states, or between citizens of a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; third, where the controversy is between citizens of the same state claiming land under grants of different states; and, fourth, where the United States are plaintiffs.90 The circuit courts also have jurisdiction, without pecuniary limitation, of all suits under internal revenue and postal laws; 91 of all suits for penalties under laws regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant ves

111 U. S. 252.

85 Rev. Stat., sec. 687. See also Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449; P. T. C. Co. v. Alabama, 155 id. 482. But see Curtis's Jurisdiction of the Courts of the U. S., p. 10.

8 U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121.

87 Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409.

8 Rev. Stat., sec. 688.

See Act 3d Mar., 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826.

"Act 13th Aug., 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433. "Rev. Stat., sec. 629.

94

96

sels; 92 of patent,93 copyright, and trade-mark 95 cases; of winding-up suits against national banks; " and of suits to recover damages for injuries to the person or property under revenue laws.97

The circuit courts also have original jurisdiction under the Anti-trust Act of 1890,98 and under the Interstate Commerce Act 99 and in customs cases.1 100

The circuit courts also have original jurisdiction, concurrent with the court of claims, of all claims against the United States, when the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds one thousand dollars and does not exceed ten thousand dollars.1

The circuit courts have also, on the criminal side, exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offenses made such by the statutes of the United States, except where otherwise provided by law, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts of crimes and offenses cognizable therein.2

The district courts have original jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses made such by the statutes of the United States when committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, and the punishment of which is not capital; and on the civil side, of all suits for penalties and forfeitures; of all suits at common law brought by the United States, or by any officer thereof, authorized by law to sue; of all suits in equity to enforce liens, etc., under the

Rev. Stat., sec. 629.

3 Rev. Stat., sec. 629; Act 3d Mar., 1897, c. 395, 29 Stat. 695.

Rev. Stat., sec. 629; Act 6th Jan., 1897, c. 4, 29 Stat. 481.

*Act 3d Mar., 1881, c. 138, 21 Stat. 502.

"Act 13th Aug., 1888, c. 866, sec. 4, 25 Stat. 436, amending Rev. Stat., sec. 629.

97 Rev. Stat., sec. 629.

Act 2d July, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209.

"Acts 4th Feb., 1887, c. 104, sec. 16, 24 Stat. 384; 2d March, 1889, c. 382, sec. 5, 25 Stat. 855.

100 Under sec. 15 of the Act of 10th June, 1890, c. 407, 26 Stat. 131.

1 Act 3d Mar., 1887, c. 359, sec. 2, 24 Stat. 505.

2 Act 13th Aug., 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat. 433.

internal revenue statutes; of suits for the recovery of forfeitures or damages due to the United States; of all causes of action under the postal laws; of admiralty causes, saving to suitors their common-law remedies, if any; and of all litigation in bankruptcy. The district courts have also concurrent jurisdiction with the court of claims in claims against the United States when the matter in dispute does not exceed one thousand dollars.*

The court of claims has original jurisdiction of claims against the United States, and of set-offs against the claims sued on."

Appellate and supervisory jurisdiction.

102. As the Constitution has declared that in all cases, other than those in which original jurisdiction has been by its terms vested in the Supreme Court, that court "shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make," Congress may define and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court cannot be required to review the actions of officers of the United States under legislative or executive references. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction the Supreme Court of the United States may review the final judgments and decrees of the inferior courts of the United States under the restrictions stated in the acts of Congress, and it may review the final judgments or decrees of the courts of last resort of the states in causes either

Rev. Stat., sec. 563.

'Act 3d Mar., 1887, c. 359, sec. 2, 24 Stat. 505.

"Rev. Stat., sec. 1059 et seq.

6

Wiscart v. Dauchy, 3 Dall. 321; Durousseau v. U. S., 6 Cr. 307, 314; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381; L. & G. W. S. Co. v. P. I. Co., 129 id. 397.

7

Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. 409; Hunt v. Palao, 4 How. 589; McNulty v. Batty, 10 id. 72; U. S. v. Ferreira, 13 id. 40; Gordon v. U. S., 2 Wall. 561. See also language of Taney, C. J., in appendix to 117 U. S.

civil or criminal, "where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favour of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by either party, under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority." But even though the state court of last resort passes upon a question federal in its nature, if the decision also involves an independent ground sufficiently broad to sustain the judgment, that decision cannot be questioned in the Supreme Court.10 The courts of the United States also exercise a supervisory jurisdiction over the courts of the states by a removal from a court of a state to a federal court of a cause, either civil or criminal, depending but

'Rev. Stat., sec. 709. See also Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515; Twitchell v. The Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 321; Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131; Burthe v. Denis, 133 id. 514; Missouri v. Andriano, 138 id. 496; Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 id. 266; Williams v. Heard, 140 id. 529; Metropolitan Bank v. Claggett, 141 id. 520; Boyd v. Nebraska, 143 id. 135; Roby v. Colehour, 146 id. 153; Sayward v. Denny, 158 id. 180; C. & N. W. Ry. v. Chicago, 164 id. 454; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 id. 193; Scudder v. Comptroller, 175 id. 32; Boske v. Comingore, 177 id. 459; Rothschild v. Knight, 184 id. 334; M. L. I. Co. v. McGrew, 188 id. 291; Hooker v. Los Angeles, ibid. 314; N. M. B. & L. Assn. v. Brahan, 193 id. 635; cf. Moran v. Horsky, 178 id. 205; Y. & M. V. Ry. v. Adams, 180 id. 1.

10 De Saussure v. Gaillard, 127 U. S. 216; Hale v. Akers, 132 id. 554; Hopkins v. McLure, 133 id. 380; Beatty v. Benton, 135 id. 244; Johnson v. Risk, 137 id. 300; Cook County v. C. & C. C. & D. Co., 138 id. 635; Hammond v. Johnston, 142 id. 73; Eustis v. Bolles, 150 id. 361; R. R. v. C. V. R., 159 id. 630; Seneca Nation v. Christy, 162 id. 283; Allen v. S. P. R., 173 id. 479; Seeberger v. McCormick, 175 id. 274; Moran v. Horsky, 178 id. 205; Hale v. Lewis, 181 id. 473; Howard v. Fleming, 191 id. 126. See also Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 id. 71.

not yet finally adjudicated in the state court,11 or by the issue of a writ of habeas corpus in cases of a restraint of personal liberty under process of a court of a state, void by reason of the offense with which the prisoner is charged being a matter of federal, and not of state, cognizance, or by reason of the restraint of a prisoner in violation of the Constitution, or of any treaty, or law of the United States.12 The right of appeal, or of removal, or to the writ of habeas corpus, is in any case dependent, not only on the federal character of the question involved, or the right of the party to sue in the federal court, but also on the terms of the act of Congress authorizing the exercise by the court of the United States of its supervisory jurisdiction in the particular case. The Constitution does not expressly authorize the removal of causes of federal cognizance from the courts of the states to the courts of the United States before final judgment, nor does it expressly authorize the review of such causes in the Supreme Court of the United States after the entry of final judment in a court of a state, nor does it expressly authorize the release by a court of the United States after a hearing on

"West v. Aurora City, 6 Wall. 139; Philadelphia v. The Collector, 5 id. 720; The Mayor v. Cooper, 6 id. 247; Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Removal Cases, ibid. 457; Ames v. Kansas, 111 id. 449; Young v. Parker, 132 id. 267; Bock v. Perkins, 139 id. 628; Marshall v. Holmes, 141 id. 589; Martin v. B. & O. R., 151 id. 673; cf. Brown v. Trousdale, 138 id. 389; Bellaire v. B. & O. R., 146 id. 117; Chappell v. Waterworth, 155 id. 102; E. L. L. Co. v. Brown, ibid. 488; Arkansas v. K. & T. C. Co., 183 id. 185. 19 In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372; Medley, Petitioner, ibid. 160; In re Neagle, 135 id. 1; In re Frederich, 149 id. 70; Ohio v. Thomas, 173 id. 276; Boske v. Comingore, 177 id. 459; cf. Storti v. Massachusetts, 183 id. 138. But ordinarily the writ issues only when the court under whose warrant the petitioner is held is without jurisdiction. In re Duncan, 139 U. S. 449; Whitten v. Tomlinson, 160 id. 231; Crossley v. California, 168 id. 640; Baker v. Grice, 169 id. 284; Tinsley v. Anderson, 171 id. 101; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 id. 148; Markuson v. Boucher, 175 id. 184; Davis v. Burke, 179 id. 399; Minnesota v. Brundage, 180 id. 499. See also U. S. v. Sing Tuck, 194 id. 161; cf. Ex parte Royall, 117 id. 241, 252; New York v. Eno, 155 id. 89; Rev. Stat., sec. 751 et seq.