COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 



497 



there is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, 

 or an authority exercised under, the United States, and tlie 

 state court decides against its validity ; or where is drawn in 

 question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised 

 under, any state, on the ground of its being repugnant to the 

 constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the de- 

 cision is in favour of its validity ; or where is drawn in ques- 

 tion the construction of any clause of the constitution, or of a 

 treaty or statute of, or commission held under, the United 

 States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or 

 exemption specially set up or claimed by cither party, under 

 such clause of the constitution, treaty, statute, or commission. 

 The appellate jurisdiction, however, so exercised in these cases, 

 coming from the state courts, is confined to the points above 

 mentioned, and does not extend to the other merits of the case, 

 not connected therewith, nor flowing therefrom. 



From this sketch, it will be perceived that the supreme court 

 exercises, or may exercise, jurisdiction in the following classes 

 of cases : 1. In cases where the construction of the constitu- 

 tion, treaties, and statutes of the United States is involved ; 

 8. in cases where the state laws are supposed to be inconsistent 

 with the constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States ; 

 3. in cases of rights derived under the constitution, treaties, or 

 laws of the United States ; 4. in cases where a state is a party 

 to the suit, or a foreign ambassador, or minister, or consul, or 

 vice-consul ; 5. in cases of controversies of a civil nature be- 

 tween aliens and citizens, or between citizens of one state and 

 citizens of another state ; 6. in cases of admiralty and maritime 

 jurisdiction. As a general description, this is sufficiently precise 

 for the common reader. The supreme court has authority, also, 

 in various other modes, to exercise a supervision over the acts 

 of inferior tribunals ; as, by granting writs of mandamus, to 

 direct them to do their duty in certain cases ; by granting 

 writs of prohibition, where they exceed their authority ; by 

 granting writs of habeas corpus, to relieve parties from unjust 

 imprisonment, &c. c. In cases also where no appeal lies to 

 the supreme court, the judges of the circuit courts are allowed 

 to obtain the opinion of the supreme court, by certifying cases 

 to that court, in which they are divided in opinion. This 

 course is often pursued in important and difficult questions, 

 both of civil and criminal law, and in the latter especially, be- 

 cause, in criminal cases, the supreme court has no direct ap- 

 pellate jurisdiction. The general mass of business, which em. 

 ploys the supreme court, consists of private controversies re- 

 specting property, or personal rights and contracts. In times 

 of war, it also exercises a final appellate jurisdiction in prize 

 causes, and other causes in which belligerent and neutral rights 

 and duties are involved. For the most part, questions of na- 

 tional and public law are there finally discussed and settled. Its 

 most important function, however, in a practical view, is the 

 decision of the great constitutional questions, which, from time 

 to time, arise in the different parts of the Union. These ques- 

 tions are not brought forward, in a formal manner, by the go- 

 vernment itself, to be adjudged upon a mere reference of them 

 to the court. The court cannot take cognizance of them in such 

 a shape, but only in a suit regularly brought before it, in which 

 the point arises, and is essential to the rights of one of the 

 parties. Hence it happens that a private person may litigate 

 Hiiy question respecting the constitutionality of a law of the 

 national or state government, whenever it is connected with 

 his own rights, which are in controversy in a suit. Such a 

 person may not only litigate the constitutionality of such laws, 

 independently of the government, but even against the will of 

 the government ; and it not unfrequently happens that such 

 questions are discussed and decided without the government 

 having any opportunity of interposing itself in the discussion. 

 The constitution is deemed the supreme law of the land, which 

 rulers, and magistrates, and legislatures are bound to obey ; 

 and if, unintentionally or otherwise, they overleap the proper 

 boundary, and the supreme court so decide, the act of the le- 

 gislatures or rulers becomes a mere nullity, and receives no 

 sanction or support whatsoever. It may naturally be supposed 

 that, in many instances, such questions must involve interests 

 of a public nature to a vast extent, as well as contests respect- 

 ing the just exercise of political power, and thus give rise to 

 very heated discussions, and sometimes to violent political 

 struggles, which might threaten the very existence of the na- 

 tional government But hitherto, however warm have been 

 the preliminary controversies, and however important the 

 rights to state sovereignty or state pride, the decisions of the 

 supreme court have been universally respected. Indeed, the 

 people are so well satisfied, that the great security of their 

 civil and political liberties essentially depends upon the inde- 

 pendent exercise of this great function, and the supreme court 

 is accustomed to expound its opinion with so much fulness and 

 moderation, that no instance has occurred, in which H great 

 majority of the nation has not hitherto rested satisfied with the 

 decision. Such is the supremacy of law in the United States. 



If it be asked, in what respects the supreme court of the United 

 States differs, in its functions and organization, from the highest 

 courts of England, the following will be found the most import- 

 ant particulars : l.In England, the prize and admiralty jurisdic- 

 tion, the equity jurisdicton, and the.common law jurisdiction, are 

 severally intrusted to distinct courts. The supreme court of the 

 United States exercises all these jurisdictions, as, indeed, do the 

 circuit courts. 2. The highest courts in England have a general 

 jurisdiction as to all persons and all suits. The supreme court 

 of the United States has a limited and restricted jurisdiction 

 over particular persons only, and particular classes of suits. 3. 

 The courts in Britain have no jurisdiction over constitutional 

 questions : an act of parliament is an act of uncontrollable so. 

 vereignty, which all courts must obey and enforce. 4. The 

 courts in Britain do not exercise jurisdiction ill cases between 

 II. 



state sovereignties ; or, if they do, it is a very limited and in- 

 cidental jurisdiction. In many particulars, the highest courts 

 in Britain and the supreme court of the United States exercise 

 the same powers substantially in the same way. In the first 

 place, the general system of jurisprudence to be administered 

 by them is, in most respects, the same. The common law go. 

 verns in Britain. It constitutes the general basis of the juris, 

 prudence of all the states in the Union, with the exception of 

 Louisiana, where the civil law prevails, as it did while that 

 territory belonged to France and Spain. The common law is, 

 indeed, modified by the legislation of the several states, accord- 

 ing to their pleasure, as it is by the parliament in Britain ; and, 

 in some of the states, there are some customs and peculiarities 

 which grew up in early times. But they are few, and, in a 

 general sense, unimportant. The statutes passed by the states, 

 and the judicial constructions or interpretations of them, consti- 

 tute the principal peculiarities of what is denominated local 

 law; and these are far more uniform than, at first thought, 

 would be supposed. The original circumstances of the colonies 

 were not. as to most political and municipal arrangements, ma. 

 terially different. Inheriting from Britain the common law, 

 they generally adopted such amendments of it as were, from 

 time to time, made in the mother country ; and, in their colonial 

 legislation, they borrowed from each other such portions of 

 the statutes, which were enacted and in use, as were suited to 

 their own wants. Hence, at an early day, in almost all the 

 colonies, they enacted nearly uniform laws as to the making of 

 wills, as to registering of conveyances of lands, as to the descent 

 of estates among all the children, giving, in some cases, a 

 double share to the eldest son, but excluding the British law of 

 primogeniture. The system of land law, that is, the system 

 adopted in relation to the sale and distribution of the public 

 lands belonging to the states, constitutes, at this very time, a 

 more important feature of difference in the legislation, and ju- 

 dicial interpretation of rights to landed property, than any 

 other in the whole code of positive law. It may naturally be 

 presumed, too, that, though the common law was the general 

 basis of the jurisprudence of all the states, yet, in the course of 

 time, the judicial interpretations thereof, especially when there 

 were no printed reports, might essentially vary in the different 

 states, in many cases ; and that these diversities, as well from 

 the different talents and acquirements of the judges, as from 

 the uncertainty of many of the principles of decision, might 

 create other heads of local law. It would surprise a foreigner, 

 however, to learn how few, comparatively speaking, these now 

 are. The regular publication of reports ; the desire to give 

 uniformity to the system ; the influence of the decisions in the 

 mother country and in the national courts, have a powerful 

 operation upon the whole profession in this respect, and the 

 more powerful and beneficial, because it is silent and insensi- 

 ble. In this way. it conduces to a general harmony and coinci- 

 dence in the administration of the law, by the gentle means of 

 juridical reasoning and argument 



From this general prevalence of the common law, the deci- 

 sions made from time to time in England are cited in the dis- 

 cussions in the American courts, not as absolute authorities, 

 but as very able expositions of the law ; and, on that account, 

 they are generally adopted. In the next place, the modes of 

 administering justice are the same in the courts of the United 

 States as they are in England in like cases. In the price and 

 admiralty proceedings, the principles and practice of the Eng- 

 lish courts of admiralty are adopted; in equity causes, the 

 principles and practice of the court of chancery in England; in 

 suits at common law, the principles and practice of the courts 

 of commendam in England. There are no courts in America 

 which possess a general jurisdiction in ecclesiastical affairs, 

 like the ecclesiastical courts in England ; for, in America there 

 is no church establishment. But the business of the probate of 

 wills, and granting administration on the estate of deceased 

 persons, and appointing guardians to minors and others, is ge- 

 nerally confided to orphan courts, or probate courts, exercising 

 a jurisdiction over these subjects very similar to the summary . 

 jurisdiction exercised by the ecclesiastical courts in England 

 over the same subjects. The jurisprudence in America, then, 

 not being entirely homogeneous, the supreme court, in the ex- 

 ercise of its jurisdiction, has an invariable regard to the local 

 law, where it applies, and, consequently, is called upon to ad- 

 minister justice in many cases of a conflict of laws. In this 

 part of its functions, it acts upon the same general principles 

 which regulate, or ought to regulate, the tribunals of other in- 

 dependent states. It acts upon the same principles which the 

 English courts would act upon ; but it is called more frequent, 

 ly to decide on such questions, and therefore it refers more, as 

 guides in its decisions, to the civil law writers, who have dis- 

 cussed this complicated subject with ability and learning. In. 

 deed, it may be stated as a general fact, that the American 

 courts, in questions of public and commercial law, are iu the 

 habit of paying great attention to the works of the continental 

 jurists. 



The supreme court of the United States exercises no politi- 

 cal functions whatsoever, except the administration of public 

 and prize law, and the decision of constitutional questions, may 

 be so considered. It is wholly independent of the executive 

 go 



their continuance in office. The present salary 

 j ustice is 5000 dollars, and that of each of the other j udges 4,500 

 dollars. They are liable to impeachment for high crimes and 

 misdemeanours' before the senate of the United States, and, 

 upon conviction by two-thirds of the members present, are 

 liable to be removed from office. Cases of impeachment of pub- 

 lic officers are exclusively triable before the senate ; aud, when 

 the president of the United States is on trial, the chief justice 

 2l 



