212 WRIGHT— LIMITATIONS UPON NATIONAL POWERS. 



A treaty depriving courts of any inherent right, privilege or 

 power would, undoubtedly, be void,^^ though a treaty may exempt 

 certain persons from the judicial power of subpoena"^ and need 

 not provide security of tenure and compensation for the judges 

 in consular and other courts it establishes, as they do not exercise 

 the " judicial power of the United States." °^ 



Treaties cannot vest courts exercising " the judicial power of 

 the United States " with non-judicial functions.^"" Thus doubt 

 has been expressed whether treaties could provide for appeal from 

 federal courts to an international tribunal, since with such a review 

 by an authority not exercising " the judicial power of the United 

 States " the original hearing by the federal court would be rendered 

 non-judicial in character. Such an international tribunal could 

 not not be endowed by Congress with the " judicial power of the 

 United States " since its judges could not be assured the security 

 of tenure and compensation required of courts exercising that 

 power and the Supreme Court has expressly held that courts 

 established by Congress in the territories and courts established 

 abroad or in the United States by treaty do not exercise that 

 power.^"^ In the case of Gordon v. United States the Supreme 

 Court refused to hear appeals from the Court of Claims which 

 would subsequently be reviewable by the Secretary of the Treasury, 

 saying : ^°^ 



" The Supreme Court's jurisdiction and powers and duties being defined in 

 the organic law of the government, and being all strictly judicial, Congress 

 cannot require or authorize the court to exercise any other jurisdiction or 

 power, or perform any other duty. . . . The award of execution is a part, 

 and an essential part, of every judgment passed by a court exercising 

 judicial power. It is no judgment in the legal sense of the term, without it. 

 Without such an award judgment would be inoperative and nugatory, leav- 

 ing the aggrieved party without a remedy. . . . Such is not the judicial power 

 confided to this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction; yet it is the 

 whole power that the court is allowed to exercise under this act of Congress." 



97 Infra, sec. 53. 



9^ Dillon's case, supra, sec. 46. 



^^ Supra, note 95. 



100 Supra, sec. 55. 



i°i Supra, note 95. 



102 Gordon v. U. S., 117 U. S. 697. 



