§ 206. Appeal from district and circuit courts, how regulated. § 207. Appeals direct to Supreme Court from district and circuit courts § 212. Cases where question of jurisdiction only reviewed, without reference to amount. § 217. When a Territory becomes a State after judgment or decree in territorial court. § 218. Judgments and decrees of district courts in cases transferred from territorial court. § 219. § 220. § 221. Judgments and decrees of supreme court of District of Columbia. § 222. Time and manner of appeal from the court of claims. § 223. Judgment and decrees of State courts on writs of error. § 224. Precedence of writs of error to State courts in criminal cases. § 202. Original jurisdiction.—The Șupreme Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter cases it shall have original, exclusive jurisdiction. And it shall have ely all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedinst embassadors, or other public ministers, domestics, or domestic servants, as a court can have consistently with the law of and original, but not exclusive, jurisdicall suits brought by embassadors, or other ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul ty. [See secs. 4063-4066.] (U. S. Const. sec. 2, cl. 2; Rev. Stats., sec. 687.) --See Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411; Marbury son, 1 Cranch, 137; Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. born v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 735; Florida v. Georgia, . 478; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Misv. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475. eneral.-The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction hat given by the Constitution or laws of the United (Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch, 73.) An action the limits prescribed is coram non judice, and its a nullity. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 233; S. C., 12 Peters, 657.) A proceeding to obtain amus is an action at law between the parties, and egarded as a prerogative writ. (Com. v. Dennison, v. 66; Com. v. Boutwell, 12 Wall. 626.) The SuCourt has no original jurisdiction where a private an alien, seeks to obtain redress for a wrong done y another private person, who is a citizen. (Ex Barry, 2 How. 65.) So an indictment against a person for an insult upon an embassador or public er is not a case affecting such embassador or er. (U. S. v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467.) In the abof any legislation of Congress as to the process and of procedure where the Supreme Court has original ction, the court itself may prescribe the mode and of procedure. (Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; olm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; New Jersey v. New 5 Peters, 284; Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 266. ection defines the original jurisdiction of this court, and desige subjects for its exercise where a State is complainant. (Wisconelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S 265.) ED. PROC.-41. Where State is party. The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court refers to cases in which an original suit might be instituted in the Federal courts, and not to cases between a State and its citizens, or where a State is enforcing its penal laws. (Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264.) It must be a case in which the State is either nominally or substantially a party (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411); it must be a party on the record. (Bank v. Planters' Bank, 9 Wheat. 904.) It has no original jurisdiction over suits brought by any other political division than a State of the Union (Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700); nor has it jurisdiction over questions of a political character. (State v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50; Cherokee Nation v. State, 5 Peters, 1.) So, an Indian tribe is not a foreign state, and cannot institute a suit in the Supreme Court. (Cherokee Nation v. State, 5 Peters, 1.) The Supreme Court is the arbiter of controversies between States (Chancely v. Bailey, 37 Ga. 532); as in questions of boundaries (Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478; Missouri v. Iowa, 7 How. 660; Alabama v. Georgia, 23 How. 505; Virginia v. West Virginia, 11 Wall. 39; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 12 Peters, 657; 15 Peters, 233), and the rules of practice and proceedings in such cases will be molded to bring it to final hearing on its real merits. (Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Peters, 210.) A private person cannot commence a suit against a State to recover the proceeds of property in its possession (Ex parte Madrazo, 7 Peters. 627); and the fact that land has been granted by and is claimed under a State does not make the State a party to the controversy between private persons concerning the land. (Fowler v. Lindsey, 3 Dall. 411.) A State may bring an original suit against a citizen of another State, but not against one of its own, in the Supreme Court (Pennsylvania v. Quicksilver Co., 10 Wall. 553); nor can it prosecute a suit in the Supreme Court on the ground of any remote or contingent interest in itself (State v. Wheeling Bridge Co., 13 How. 518); nor file a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties. (State v. Johnson, 4 Wall. 475.) Where a State brings a suit, the bill is filed by the governor on behalf of the State. (Georgia v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402; Com. v. Dennison, 24 How. 266.) It may file a bill on a bond on which the has obtained judgment in the circuit court. v. Brailsford, 2 Dall. 402.) When a State is desummons served on the governor and attorneyis sufficient (Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419; v. State, 3 Dall. 320); and it is entitled to a me to answer than an individual. (Rhode Island achusetts, 13 Peters, 23.) If it fails to appear on rn day, the adverse party may proceed (Ex parte . South Carolina, 3 Dall. 339; New Jersey v. New Peters, 284); and so if it withdraws its appearRhode Island v. Massachusetts, 15 Peters, 233; 2 Peters, 657.) 3. Writs of prohibition and manas.-The Supreme Court shall have power to writs of prohibition to the district courts proceeding as courts of admiralty and mariurisdiction; and writs of mandamus in cases nted by the principles and usages of law, to ourts appointed under the authority of the d States, or to persons holding office under thority of the United States, where a State embassador, or other public minister, or a 1 or vice-consul, is a party. (Rev. Stats. sec. hibition. When a writ of prohibition is applied he question presented is not whether libelant can r on the suit he has begun, but whether he can go court of admiralty to have his rights determined. arte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433.) Where the quesf jurisdiction was one proper to be decided by the alty court subject to the remedy by appeal, the writ be denied (Ex parte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433); the case of a suit for pilotage claimed to be due a statutory regulation (Ex parte Hager, 3 Morr. 438); or a suit for damages for death in a on. (Ex parte Gordon, 3 Morr. Trans. 433. See arte Gordon, 1 Black, 503.) A writ of prohibiwill not be issued after the libel has been dis missed. (U. S. v. Hoffman, 4 Wall, 158.) If the district court entertains a libel in personam to recover damages for a seizure as prize when the prize has been taken into a foreign port, the writ will issue. (U. S. v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121.) Whether the district court has transcended its jurisdiction depends on the facts stated in the record. (Ex parte Easton, 85 U. S. 68.) It cannot be issued to regulate proceedings of the district court as a court of bankruptcy. (In re Christy, 3 How. 292.) It can issue the writ only under especial authority of law. (Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 503; In re Christy, 3 How. 292.) It cannot be issued to restrain a proceeding on bill of review, as on condemnation of land under confiscation laws (Ex parte Graham, 10 Wall. 541); nor can it issue the writ to restrain the execution of a sentence for crime of one convicted in the circuit court (Ex parte Gordon, 1 Black, 292); nor restrain a proceeding by bill in equity to determine the right to an elective office. (Ex parte Warmouth, 17 Wall. 64.) This court may proceed by way of prohibition in respect to the district court for the district of Alaska. (Re Cooper, 138 U. S. 404. See Farnsworth v. Montana, 129 U. S. 104.) The writ may be issued to the district court in a case in admiralty and maritime cognizance, in which it has no jurisdiction. (Ex parte Easton, 25 U. S. 88; United States v. Peters, 3 Dall. 121.) Mandamus, office of writ.-The office of a writ of mandamus is to compel the performance of a plain and positive duty (Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14), and is the only adequate mode of relief where an inferior court refuses to act (Life & F. Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 8 Peters, 291), or where the exercise of the discretion of the court is ir regular, against law, of flagrant injustice, or without jurisdiction. (Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 364.) The writ may be issued to supervise proceeding in inferior tribunals where there is a legal right without an existing remedy (Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wall. 376); but it is never granted in anticipation of an omission of duty, but only after actual default. (Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14.) It may issue to compel a court to proceed with the case (Insurance Co. v. Comstock, 16 Wall. 258; Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507); or to remand a case (Ex parte Virginia, 100 |