« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Art. 1. Sect 9. accept of any present, emolument, office (a) or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state.
SECT. X. 1. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit ;(b) make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, (c) or law impairing the obligation of contracts, (d) or grant any title of nobility.
Limitation of the powers of the states.
2. No state shall, without the consent of the congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws Tonnage duties. shall be subject to the revision and control of the congress. No state shall, without the Troops and ships consent of congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war, in time of
peace, enter into any agreement or compact (e) with another state, or with a foreign
Term of office.
Mode of election.
SECT. I. 1. The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.(g) He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and together with the vice president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows:
2. Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the congress; but no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
3. [The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the president of the senate. The president of the senate shall, in the presence of the senate and house of representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the president, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the house of representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for president; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said house shall in like manner choose the president. But in choosing the president, the votes shall be taken by states, the
(a) Thus, a marshal of the United States cannot, at the same time, hold the office of commercial agent of France. 6 Opin. 409. (b) To constitute a bill of credit within the constitution, it must be issued by a state, involve the faith of the state, and be designed to circulate as money, on the credit of the state, in the ordinary uses of business. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. 257. As to what are such bills of credit; see Craig v. Missouri, 4 Ibid. 410; 8. c. 8 Ibid. 40. Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. 205. Darrington v. State Bank of Alabama, 13 Ibid. 12. Curran v. Arkansas. 15 Ibid. 317-18.
(c) See supra 5, note i. The constitution does not prohibit the states from passing retrospective laws generally, but only ex post facto laws. Watson v. Mercer, 8 Pet. 110. Retrospective laws divesting vested rights are impolitic and unjust; but they are not ex post facto laws within the meaning of the constitution nor repugnant to its provisions; Albee v. May. 2 Paine, 74; unless they impair the obligation of a contract. Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Co. v. Nesbit, 10 How. 401. Should a statute declare, contrary to the general principles of law, that contracts founded upon an illegal or immoral consideration, whether in existence at the time of passing the statute, or which might hereatter be entered into, should nevertheless be valid and binding upon the parties, all would admit the retrospective character of such an enactment, but it would not be repugnant to the con#titution of the United States. Satterlee v. Matthewson, 2 Pet. 412.
(d) This provision has never been understood to embrace other contracts than those which respect property, or some object of value, and confer rights which may be asserted in a court of jus tice. Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wh. 629. A private charter is such a contract. Dartmouth College . Woodward. 4 Wh. 518. An act incorporating a banking institution. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514. Gordon v. Appeal Tax Court, 3 How. 133. Planters' Bank e. Sharp, 6 Ibid. 301. Curran v. Arkansas, 15 Ibid. 304. A grant of land by the legislature of a state. Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. 87. Terrett v. Taylor. 9 Ibid. 43. And so is a compact between two states. Green v. Biddle, 8 Wh. 1. Allen v. McKean, 1 Sumn. 276. And see 2 Pars. on Cont 509. An appointment to a salaried office, however, is not a contract, within the meaning of the constitution. Butler v. Pennsyl vania, 10 How. 402. Commonwealth v. Mann, 5 W. & S. 418 Commonwealth v. Bacon. 6 S. & R. 322. Barker v. Pittsburgh, 4 Barr, 49. All contracts are subject to the right of eminent domain existing in the several states; and the exercise of this
power does not conflict with the constitution. West River Bridge Co. v. Dix, 6 How. 507. Rundle v. Delaware and Raritan Canal Co.. 14 Ibid. 80. Nor does the exercise of the power of taxation. Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Pet. 514. See New York and Erie Railroad Co. v. Sabin, 2 Casey, 242. So, the states may pasƐ limitation acts. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 289-90. Hawkins . Barney's Lessee, 5 Ibid. 457. Bronson v. Kinsie, 1 How. 315. Phalen v. Virginia, 8 Ibid. 168. Exemption Laws. Bronson v. Kinsie, ut supra. Insolvent laws. discharging the person of a debtor from imprisonment. Mason 2. Haile, 12 Wh. 370. Beers v. Haughton, 9 Pet. 329. Recording acts, postponing an elder to a younger title, after a limited period. Jackson v. Lamphire, 3 Pet. 289. And laws relating to divorces. Dartmouth College . Woodward, 4 Wh. 629. Whatever belongs merely to the remedy may be altered according to the will of the state, provided the alterations do not impair the obligation of the contract; but if that effect be produced, it is immaterial whether it be done by acting on the remedy or directly on the contract itself. Bronson v. Kinsie, 1 How. 316. The extent of change is not material, any postponement or acceleration of the performance of the contract impairs its obligation. Green v. Biddle. 8 Wh. 1. 75. M'Cracken e. Hayward. 2 How. 608. And see United States e. Conway, Hemp. 313. Johnson v. Bond. Ibid. 533. Moore v. Fowler, Ibit 536. Erie and N. E. Railroad Co. v. Casey, 2 Casey. 287. This clause does not affect the laws of Texas passed before its admission into the Union. League v. De Young, 11 How. 185.
(e) These words are used in their broadest sense; they were intended to cut off all negotiation and intercourse between the state authorities and foreign nations. Helmes e. Jennison, 14 Pet. 572, 574. And therefore, no state can, without the consent of congress, enter into any agreement or compact, express or im plied, to deliver up fugitives from justice from a foreign state, who may be found within its limits. Ibid. 3 Opin. 661. This prohibition is political in its character, and has no reference to a mere matter of contract, or to the grant of a franchise which in nowise conflicts with the powers delegated to the general govern ment by the states. Union Branch Railroad Co. v. Fast Tennes see and Georgia Railroad Co., 14 Geo. 327. A compact entered into between two states, with the assent of congress, is binding on those states, and the citizens of each, Fleeger v. Pool, 1 McLean, 185.
(g) An art done by one president, vesting a right in a citizen, is not subject to review or reversal by his successor. 6 Opin. 603.
representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist Art. 2. Sect. 1. of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the president, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the vice president. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the senate shall choose from them by ballot the vice president.](a)
4. The congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, (b) and the day on Time of election. which they shall give their votes; (c) which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
5. No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the Qualifications f the president. time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.
6. In case of the removal of the president from office, or of his death, resignation, Vacancy, how supplied. or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the vice president, and the congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the president and vice president, declaring what officer shall then act as president, and such officer shall act accordingly until the disability be removed, or a president shall be elected.
7. The president shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which His compensashall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or Oath of office. affirmation:
"I do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States."
SECT. II. 1. The president shall be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the Powers and United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; (d) he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons (e) for offences against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the senate, to make Treaties. treaties, provided two-thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate,(g) and by and with the advice and consent of the senate, (h) shall appoint (i) ambassadors, Appointing other public ministers (k) and consuls, judges of the supreme court, and all other officers power. of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. (1) But the congress may by law vest the appoint
(a) This clause is altogether altered and supplied by the 12th amendment. (b) On the Tuesda, next after the first Monday in November; by act 23 January 1845. 5 Stat. 721.
(c) On the first Wednesday in December; by act 1 March 1792. 1 Stat. 239.
(d) The president is not obliged to take. personally, the command of the militia, when called into the service of the general government, but he may place them under the command of officers of the army of the United States, to whom, in his absence, he may delegate the powers vested in him by the constitution. Any officer of the army may, therefore, be required, by orders emanating from the president, to perform the appropriate duties of his station, in the militia, when in the service of the United States, whenever the public interest shall so require. But this power must be exercised in strict accordance with the right of appointment of militia officers which is expressly reserved to the states. 2 Opin. 711-12. See 2 Story Const. 1490-2.
(e) He may pardon as well before trial and conviction as afterwards. 6 Opin. 20. And after the expiration of the imprisonment, which forms a part of the sentence. Stetler's Case, Phila. R. 302. He may grant a conditional pardon; Ex parte Wells, 18 How. 307; 1 Opin. 341; provided the condition be compatible with the genius of our constitution and laws. Ibid. 482. Where the condition is such that the government has no power to carry into effect, the pardon will be in effect unconditional. 5 Ibid. 368. See Flavell's Case, 8 W. & S. 197. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 161. People v. Potter, 1 Parker, C. R. 47. The pardoning power includes that of remitting fines, penalties and forfeitures under the revenue laws: 2 Opin. 329; the passenger laws; 6 Ibid. 393; the laws prohibiting the slave trade; 4 Iid, 573; fines imposed en defaulting jurors; 3 Ibid. 317; 4 Ibid. 458; for a contempt of court; 3 Ibid. 622; and in criminal cases; Ibid. 418. And the same power is possessed over a judgment after security for its payment shall have been given as before. Ibid. But the president has no power to remit the forfeiture of a bail-bond. 4 Ibid. 144. Nor, it seems, can he, by a pardon, defeat a legal interest or right which has become vested in a private citizen; as, for example, the vested right of an officer making a seizure. United
States v. Lancaster, 4 W. C. C. 64. 4 Opin. 576. 6 Ibid. 615. And see 5 Ibid. 532, 579. The grant of the pardoning power neither requires nor authorizes the president to re-examine the case upon new facts; nor to grant a pardon upon the assumption of the new facts alleged. 1 Opin. 359. A pardon is a private though official act; it must be delivered to and accepted by the criminal, and cannot be noticed by the court, unless brought before it judicially by plea, motion or otherwise. United States v. Wilson, 7 Pet. 150. The president alone can pardon offences committed in a territory in violation of acts of congress. 7 Opin. 561. He has power to order a nolle prosequi in any stage of a criminal proceeding in the name of the United States. 5 Ibid. 729.
(9) 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 discre tion, withhold a commission; and until a commission has been signed, the appointment is not fully consummated. 4 Opin. 218. (h) The senate cannot originate an appointment; its constitutional action is confined to a simple affirmation or rejection of the president's nominations; and such uominations fail whenever it disagrees to them. 3 Opin. 188.
(i) 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. And he may cause a military officer to be stricken from the rolls, without a trial by a court martial, notwithstanding a decision in his favor by a court of inquiry. 4 Opin. 1. See 2 Story Const. § 1538.
(1) 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. 180.
(1) The effect of this and the other clauses in the constitution on the subject of appointments to office, is to declare that 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.
Art. 2. Sect. 2. ment of such inferior officers, (a) as they think proper, in the president alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
Power to fill vacancies.
Further pow 3r8.
3. The president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the senate, (b) by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session. (c)
SECT. I. The judicial power of the United States (1) shall be vested in one supreme court, and in such inferior courts as the congress may, from time to time, ordain and Tenure and com- establish.(i) The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall bold their offices during good behavior;(k) and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.(2)
SECT. II. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, (m) in law (n) and equity,(0) arising (p) under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority; to all cases affecting (q) ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls;(r) to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ;(s)
SECT. III. He shall from time to time, give to the congress information of the state of the Union, and recommend to their consideration such measures 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 ‹ f 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:(d) and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
SECT. IV. The president, vice president, and all civil officers (e) of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.(g)
(c) The commission of an officer appointed during a recess, who is afterwards nominated and rejected, is not thereby determined; it continues in force to the end of the next session, unless sooner determined by the president. 2 Opin. 336. 4 Ibid. 30.
(d) 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 Ibid. 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 Ibid.
(e) A senator or representative in congress is not such civil officer. Blount's Trial, 22, 102. Whart. St. Tr. 260, 316. 1 Story Const. 22 793, 802. Nor is a territorial judge, not being a constitutional but a legislative officer only. 3 Opin. 409.
(g) 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. 2799. For the rules of proceedings prescribed in cases of impeachment; see Peck's Trial, 56-9.
(h) The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States, depends exclusively on the constitution and laws of the United States. Livingston e. Jefferson, 1 Brock. 203. See American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511. 1 Curt. Comm. 24. United States v. Drenner, Hemp. 320. United States v. Alberty, Ibid. 444.
(i) Congress having the power to establish inferior courts, must as a necessary consequence have the right to define their respective jurisdictions. Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 448-9. See Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 738.
(k) Courts in which the judges hold their offices for a specific number of years, are not constitutional courts, in which the judicial powers conferred by the constitution can be deposited. American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 546.
(1) This prohibits the imposition of a tax upon a judge's salary. Commonwealth v. Mann, 5 W. & S. 415.
(m) A "case" arises, within the meaning of the constitution, wh never any question respecting the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, has assumed such a form, that the judicial power is capable of acting on it. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 819.
(n) By "cases in law," are to be understood suits in which legal rights are to be ascertained and determined, in contradistinction to those where equitable rights alone are recognised, and equitable remedies administered; or where the proceeding is in the admiralty. Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 447. Robinson v. Camp bell, 3 Wh. 212.
(0) 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 Wh. 222-3. United States v. Howland. 4 Ibid. 108. Lorman v. Clark, 2 McLean, 570-1. Lanman v. Clark, 4 Ibid. 18. Gorden v. Hobart, 2 Sumn. 401, Pratt v. Northam, 3 Mas. 95. Cropper v. Coburn, 2 Curt. C. C. 465. Comm. 27-9.
And see 1 Curt.
(p) 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 e. Virginia, 6 Wh. 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.
(q) 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 Wh. 834-5. See United States v. Ortega, 11 Wh. 467. United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297.
(r) The recognition of the executive of the United States is conclusive as to the public character of the party. Dupont e. Pichon. 4 Dall. 321. United States r. Ortega, 4 W. C. C. 531.
(8) 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. Genesee Chief v. Fitzhugh, 12 How. 443. New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. r. Mer chants' Bank, 6 Ibid. 344. Waring r. Clark, 5 Ibid. 441. Tunno . The Betsina, 5 Am. L. R. 408. The Huntress. Daveis. 83. 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. 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 jurisdietion. De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall. 398. Gloucester Ins. Co. v. Younger. 2 Curt. C. C. 322. Philadelphin 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. Corfeld r. Coryell, 4 W. 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 Betsey, 4 Ibid. 443. The Samuel, 1 Wh. 9. The Octavia, Ibid. 20, 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 materialmen, 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 lat of the state give a lien for the work and materials. Gardner v. The New Jersey, 1 Pet. Adm. 227. Stevens v. The Sandwich, Ibid. 233, n. Zane v. The Brig President, 4 W. C. C. 453. The Ship Robert Fulton, 1 Paine, 620. Davis 2. A New Brig, Gilp. 473. The General Smith, 4 Wh. 438. The St. Jago de Cuba. 9 Ibid. 409. Pey roux v. Howard, 7 Pet. 324. New Jersey Steam Navigation Co. 2. Merchants' Bank, 6 How. 390. Wick v. The Samuel Strong, 6 McLean, 590.
to controversies to which the United States shall be a party ;(a) to controversies between Art. 3. Sect. 2. two or more states ;(b) between a state and citizens of another state; (c) between citizens of different states; (d) between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, (e) and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, (g) citizens or subjects.(h)
2. In all cases affecting ambassadors,(¿) other public ministers and consuls, (k) and Jurisdiction of those in which a state shall be party,(7) the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction.(m) In all the other cases before mentioned, (n) 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.
3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury;(0) and Trial for crimes such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the congress may by law have directed.
SECT. III. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war Treasɔn. against them, (p) or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person Witnesses. shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, (g) or on confession in open court.
2. The congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no Punishment. attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.
SECT. I. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, State records, &c.
(a) Congress never having authorized suits to be brought against the United States, no such action can be commenced or prosecuted. Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wh. 411-12. See Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 18 How. 283. But this does not prevent the exercise of appellant 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 the Metropolis, 15 Pet. 392. See act 24 February 1855, erecting the Court of Claims. 10 Stat. 612.
(b) This includes a suit brought by one state against another, to determine a question of disputed boundary. Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Pet. 657. 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 Wh. 738. 1 Curt. Comm. 263.
(c) See Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co., 13 How. 518. The 11th article of the amendments, has forbidden suits by individual citizens against the states.
(d) 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. Corporation of New Orleans v. Winter. 1 Wh. 91. 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 W. C. C. 546. Gassies . Ballon, 6 Pet. 761. Shelton v. Tiffin, 6 How. 163. Lessee of Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 W. 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. Dred Scott e. Sandford, 19 How. 393-4. 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., 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 where the suit is brought, 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 Northern Railroad Co., 25 Verm. 715. (But see act 28 February 1839, post, Abatement." 2.) 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. Tur ner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dali. 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. City of Janesville, 4 Am. L. R. 593.
(e) Cases of grants made by different states are within the jurisdiction, notwithstanding one of the states, at the time of the first grant, was part of the other. Town of Pawlet v. Clark, 9 Cr. 292. It is the grant which passes the legal title, and if the controversy
is founded upon the conflicting grants of different states, the
(h) If the party to the record be an alien, he is within this clause, whether he sue in his own right, or as trustee, if he have a substantive interest as a 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 Ibid, 303. A foreign corporation is an alien for this purpose. Society for Propagating Gospel v. Town of New Haven, 8 Wh. 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 Byre, 3 Wall. Jr.
(i) See ante 8, note (7) and (r).
(k) 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. Mannhardt v. Soderstrom. 1 Binn. 138. Davis v. Packard. 6 Pet. 41. Commonwealth e. 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, Circuit Court, S. District, New York, 27 April 1857, Nelson, J.
(1) The circuit courts have no jurisdiction of a cause in which a state is a party. Gale v. Babcock, 4 W. C. C. 199; s. c. Ibid. 344. (m) In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the supreme court, founded on the character of the parties, the judi cial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellaut form. Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 Wh. 820. But if a case draws in question the laws, constitution or treaties of the United States, though a state be a party, the jurisdiction of the federal courts is appellant; 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 Wh. 392. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, I Wh. 837.
(n) Congress has no power to confer original jurisdiction on the supreme court in other cases than those enumerated in this section. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137. In the matter of Metzger, 5 How. 176, 191-2. In re Kaine. 14 How. 119.
(0) 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 Sumn. 240. And see Townsend v. The State, 2 Blackf, (Ind.) 152. Pierce v. The 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, 106.
(p) There must be an actually 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. Ex parte Bolman, 4 Cr. 75. United States v. Hanway, 2 Wall. Jr. 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.
(q) 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. 138. 1 Burr's Trial, 196. But see Fries's Trial, 14. Whart. St. Tr. 480.
Art. 4. Sect. 1. and judicial proceedings of every other state. (a) And the congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof. (b)
SECT. II. 1. The citizens of each state (c) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities (d) of citizens in the several states.
2. A person charged in any state with treason, felony or other crime, (e) 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,(g) be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.(h)
3. No person held to service or labor (i) in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, (k) shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up (7) on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.(m)
SECT. III. 1. New states may be admitted by the congress into this Union: (n) 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, as well as of the congress.
2. The congress shall have power to dispose of (o) and make all needful rules and regu
Privileges of citi
Fugitives from 'astice.
Fugitives from labor.
(a) A judgment of a state court has the same credit, validity and effect. in every ether court within the United States, which It had in the state where it was rendered. Hampton v. McConnel, 3 Wh. 234. Sarchet r. 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 t. Thatcher, 6 Wh. 129. Such judgments, as far as the court rendering them had 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 conclugive 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. 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 Wh. 234. Mills r. 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 r. Smith, 7 W. & S. 447.
(b) See act 26 May 1790, 1 Stat. 122. 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 Fued 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 e. Dalton, 9 How. 528.
(c) This does not apply to corporations. Warren Manufacturing Co. v. Etna Insurance Co., 2 Paine, 502. But see Holmes v. Nelson, Phila. R. 218-19. Since the adoption of the constitution, no state can, by any subsequent law, make a foreigner, or any other description of persons, citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument. Dred Scott v Sandford, 19 How. 393.
(d) This is confined to those privileges and immunities which are. in their nature, fundamental; which belong, of right. to the citizens of all free governments; and which have, at all times, been enjoyed by the citizens of the several states which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent and sovereign. They may be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety; subject nevertheless to such restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole. The right of a citizen of one state to pass through, or to reside in any other state, for purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits or otherwise; to claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the state; to take, hold and dispose of property, either real or personal; and an exemption 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 be added, the elective franchise. as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the state in which it is to be exercised. Corfield v. Coryell, 4 W. C. C. 380-1. And to this clause of the constitution, it seems, may be properly referred the right which, it has been asserted, is possessed by a citizen of one state to pass freely with his slaves through the territory of another state, in which the institution of slavery is not recognised. United States v. Williamson, 4 Am. L. R. 19. See The People v. Lemmon. 5 Law Rep. 486, contra. It does not embrace privileges conferred by the local laws of a state. Conner v. Elliott, 18 How. 591. Such as the rights of representation or election. Murray v. McCarty, 2 Munf. 393.
(e) It is not necessary that the crime charged should constitute an offence at the common law. In the matter of William Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311. It is enough that it is a crime against the laws of the state from which he fled. Johnson v. Riley, 13 Geo. 97. In
the matter of Clark, 9 Wend. 221. Commonwealth v. Daniels, 6 Penn. L. J. 428. Hayward's Case, 1 Am. J. J. 231.
(g) 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' Case, 6 Harris, 39. In the matter of William Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311.
(h) The alleged crime must have been committed in the stato from which the party is claimed to be a fugitive; and he must be actually a fugitive from that state. Ex parte Joseph Smith, 3 McLean, 133. Hayward's Case, 1 Am. L. J. 231. In the matter of William Fetter, 3 Zabr. 311.
(i) This includes apprentices. Boaler v. Cummines, 1 Am. L. R. 654.
(k) This does not extend to the case of a slave voluntarily carried by his master into another state, and there leaving him under the protection of some law declaring him free. Butler v. Hopper, 1 W. C. C. 499. Vaughan v. Williams, 3 McLean, 530. Pierce's Case, 1 Western Legal Observer, 14. Slavery is a municipal regulation; is local; and cannot exist without authority of law. Miller . McQuerry, 5 McLean, 469. But the question, whether slaves are made free by going into a state in which slavery is not tolerated, with the permission of their master, is purely one of local law, and to be determined by the courts of the state in which they may be found. Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82. Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 396. See In the matter of Perkins, 2 Cal. 424. (1) It was formerly held that the president had no power to cause fugitive slaves, who had taken refuge among the Indian tribes, to be apprehended and delivered up to their owners. 3 Opin. 370. But this has been since overruled, and it is now held that such fugitive in the Indian territory, being there unlawfully, and as an intruder, is subject to arrest by the executive authority of the United States, and that if in such territory there be no commissioner of the United States to act, the claimant may proceed by recapture without judicial process. 6 Opin. 302.
(m) The owner of a slave is clothed with full authority, in every state of the Union, to seize and recapture his slave, when ever he can do it without a breach of the peace or any illegal violence. Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 539. But it is under the constitution and acts of congress only, that the owner of a slave has a right to reclaim him in a state where slavery does not exist. There is no principle in the common law, in the law of nations, or of nature, which authorizes such a recaption. Giltner e. Gorham, 4 McLean, 402. The constitution however recognises slaves as property, and pledges the federal government to protect it. Dred Scott r. Sandford. 19 How. 395. A statute which punishes the harboring or secreting a fugitive slave, is not in conflict with the constitution or laws of the United States. Moore e. Illinois, 14 How. 13. Nor does the constitution exempt fugitive slaves from the penal laws of any state in which they may nappen to be. Commonwealth e. Holloway, 3 S. & R. 4.
(n) 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 by 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 fromed 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 seuse of the people in respect to it; provided such measures be prosecuted in a peaceable manner, in subordination to the exist ing government, and in subserviency to the power of congress to adopt, reject or disregard them, at their pleasure. 2 Opin. 726. (0) 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.