referees without the consent of the parties is not sanotioned; so, a nonsuit cannot be ordered in any case without the consent of the plaintiff. 12 A statute appointing commissioners to determine titles, and making their award final, does not take away the right of trial by jury;13 but the State legislature cannot direct the Federal courts, in a trial at common law, to appoint_commissioners on questions which should be submitted to a jury.14 1 Banning v. Taylor, 12.

2 Hiriart v. Ballou, 9 Peters, 156.

3 U. S. v. Distillery, 8 Ch. L. N. 57.

4 People v. Quigg, 50 N. Y. 83.

5 Ex parte Martin, 2 Paine, 348.

6 U. S. v. Anthony, 11 Blatchf. 210.

7. Low v. Commissioners, R. M. Charl. 302.

8 Green v. Savannahı, R. M. Charl. 368.

9 Miller v. U. S. 11 Wall. 268.

10 U. S. v. Barrels, 1 Bond. 587; U. S. v. Distillery, 8 Ch. L. N. 57; U. S. v. Packages, Gilp. 235.

11 U. S. v. Rathbone, 2 Paine, 578.

12 Elmore v. Grymes, 1 Peters, 469; D'Wolf v. Rabaud, 1 Peters, 476. 13 Barker v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 559.

14 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wheat. 1; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492.

Re-examination of causes.-The second clause of this article is substantial and independent, and applies to cases coming into Federal courts from State courts, and protects the verdicts rendered therein.1 The only

mode of review is on motion for a new trial.2 Since this amendment, Congress cannot confer authority to grant a new trial y a re-examination of the facts tried by a jury, except to redress errors of law. An act of Congress, so far as it authorizes the removal of causes after verdict, and trial and determination of the facts and law, is in violation of this amendment; but an act requiring the appellant to advance the jury fee is valid.5

1 Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274.

2 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433; U. S. v. Wonson, 1 Gall. 20; Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323; 2.) How. Pr. 312: Wetherbee v. Johnson, 14 Mass. 412.

3 Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Peters, 433; Bank of Hamilton v. Dudley, 2 Peters, 492.

4 Benjamin v. Murray, 23 How. Pr. 193; Patrie v. Murray, 43 Barb. 323; 14 Mass. 412. And see Spencer v. Lapsley, 20 How. 264; People v. Murray, 5 Park. C. C. 577.

5 Venine v. Archibald, 3 Colo. 163.

ARTICLE VIII.

BAIL-FINES-PUNISHMENTS.

SECTION 1.

Not to be excessive.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment, proposed 25th September, 1789; ratified 15th December, 1791.

This provision applies to National and not to State legislation. The Supreme Court cannot on habeas corpus revise the sentence of an inferior court on the ground that the fine was excessive. The constitutional right to bail is not operative after trial and conviction.8

1 Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters, 243; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 5 Wall. 480; James v. Commonwealth, 12 Serg. & R. 220; Barker v. People, 3 Cowen, 686.

2 Ex parte Watkins, 7 Peters, 568.

3 Ex parte Schwartz, 2 Tex. Ct. App. 74. See Supplement, post, 325.

ARTICLE IX.

CERTAIN RIGHTS NOT DENIED TO THE PEOPLE.

SECTION 1.

Rights of people not disparaged by Constitution.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment, proposed 25th September, 1789; ratified 15th December, 1791.

This provision applies to National and not to State leg. islation.

Livingston v. Moore, 7 Peters, 551.

ARTICLE X.

STATE RIGHTS.

SECTION 1.

Powers reserved to the States or to the people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

66

as if

State rights.-The powers proceed not from the people of America but from the people of the several States, and remain what they were before the adoption of the Constitution, except so far as they may be abridged by that instrument. The powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the State, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.2 "Delegated" is not qualified by "expressly," such qualification was moved and rejected. The United States and the States exercise jurisdiction within the same territorial limits, and are separate and independent sovereignties, acting separately and independently within their respective spheres, a line of division was traced by landmarks and monuments visible to the eye."4 The General Government can claim no powers except such as are expressly granted, or are given by necessary implication. Its powers are limited in number, but not in their nature.6 So, it has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it.7 Prohibitions on the States are not to be enlarged by construction.8 That which is forbidden to the States is not necessarily in the Federal Government, but if that which is essential to government is prohibited to one, it is equivalent to a grant on the other.9 See Supplement, post, 325.

1 Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122.

2 Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 74; McCulloch v. Md. 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; 17 Johns. 483; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738; Brown v. Md. 12 Wheat. 419; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 44); Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Peters, 435; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; National Bank v. Commonwealth, 9 Wall. 353; Sweatt v. Boston &c. R. R. Co. 5 Bank. Reg. 248; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 550; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 1 Wood. & M. 426; Inman S. S. Co. v. Tinker, 94 U. S. 238.

3 McCulloch v. Md. 4 Wheat. 316; Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 226; U. S. v. Bailey, 1 McLean, 234.

4 McCulloch v. Md. 4 Wheat. 316; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; 17 Johns. 488; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 733; Brown v. Md. 12 Wheat. 419; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Peters, 449; Dobbins v. Commissioners, 16 Peters, 435; Collector v. Day, 11 Wall. 113; National Bank v. Comm. 9 Wall. 353; Sweatt v. Boston &c. R. R. Co. 5 Bank. Reg. 248; Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 273; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How.506; Fifield v. Close, 15 Mich. 505; State v. Garton, 32 Ind. 1; State v. Gibson, 36 Ind. 38); People v. Brady, 40 Cal. 193; Lane Co. v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 76; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; 1 Woods, 308; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130.

5 Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; 4 Munf. 1; Thrasher v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 273.

6 Kneedler v. Lane, 45 Pa. St. 233; 3 Grant, 465.

7 Commonwealth v. Dennison, 24 How. 66.

8 Anderson v. Baker, 23 Md. 531.

9 Van Husan v. Kanouse, 13 Mich. 303.

No right of secession.-The right of secession is not reserved, and any statute or ordinance to that effect is a nullity, and a State continues a member of the Union, notwithstanding the Ordinance of Secession.2 A State can have no political existence outside and independent of the Constitution of the United States,3 and the attempt to separate from the Union does not destroy its identity nor free it from the binding force of that Constitution, 4 nor release citizens from their obligation of loyalty to the Government.5 The so-called Confederate Government and the rebel government of a State were not de facto governments during the Rebellion.6 The confederation of the Southern States was in direct violation of the Coustitution.7

See Ante, pp. 116, 193.

1 Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 461; U. S. v. Morrison, Chase, 521; Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 725; White v. Cannon, 6 Wall. 443; Hall v. Hall, 43 Ala. 438. And see White v. Hart, 13 Wall. 643; Sequestration Cases, 30 Tex. 688; Chancely v. Bailey, 37 Ga. 532; Cent. R. R. Co. v. Ward, 37 Ga. 515; Hood v. Maxwell. 1 W. Va. 219; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600; U. S. v. Cathcart, 1 Bond, 556.

2 Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700.

3 Penn v. Tollison, 26 Ark. 545.

4 Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 451.

5 U. S. v. Cathcart, 1 Bond, 556.

6 Chisholm v. Coleman, 43 Ala. 204; Powell v. Boon, 43 Ala. 457. Contra, Watson v. Stone, 4) Ala. 451; Michael v. State, Ibid. 36!; Scheibel v. Bachs, 41 Ala. 423. And see Shepherd v. Reese, 42 Ala.

7 Florida v. Georgia, 17 How. 478.

Reserved powers of State.-The several States, for all purposes, except those of a national character, are foreign to and independent of each other. The State legislature retains all the powers of legislation delegated to it by the State constitution, which are not expressly taken away by the Constitution of the United States; 2 so, every State has the right to determine the status or domestic and social condition of the persons domiciled within its territory. The protection of citizens in their religious liberty is left to the State constitution and laws. So, the power to regulate suffrage belongs exclusively to the State, with which Congress cannot interfere.5 The power to direct and regulate the mode of selling goods by citizens is in the State government. A State may bind itself by contract.7 There is nothing in the Constitution which forbids the legislature of a State to exercise judicial functions.8 The establishment of courts of justice, appointment of judges, and the regulation of the administration of justice within each State, are within the peculiar and exclusive province of State legislatures. States have the power to regulate the tenure of real property within their limits, the mode of acquisition, rule of descent, and extent of testamentary disposition. 10 Measures calculated to produce public benefits through the medium of corporations are within the reserved powers of the States.11 The Constitution does not furnish the corrective for the abuse of power by State governments. This is left to the interest, wisdom, and justice of the representative body, and its relations with its constituents.12

1 Buckner v. Finley, 2 Peters, 586; Bank of U. S. v. Daniel, 12 Peters, 33; Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Peters, 520; Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 350.

2 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; 2 Root, 350; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 41 Mass. 359; People v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 231.

3 Strader v. Graham, 10 How. 82.

4 Permeli v. First Municipality, 3 How. 587.

5 Huber v. Reily, 53 Pa. St. 112.

6 Commonwealth v. Kimball, 41 Mass. 359.

7 Piqua Bank v. Knoop, 16 How. 369; Ohio T. Co. v. Debolt, 16 How. 416; 1 Ohio St. 563; Boston &c. R. R. Co. v. Salem &c. R. R. Co. 68 Mass. 1.

8 Satterlee v. Mathewson, 2 Peters, 380.

9 Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386; 2 Root, 350; Lapsley v. Brashears, 4 Litt. 47.

10 U. S. v. Fox, 94 U. S. 315; Commonwealth v. Kimball, 41 Mass. 359; Frasher v. State, 3 Tex. Ct. App. 273.

11 Willson v. Blackbird C. M. Co. 2 Peters, 245; S. & V. R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 189.

12 Providence Bank v. Billings, 4 Peters. 514.