Federalist; and should have been supported or acquiesced in by some of those distinguished men who questioned or denied the power of Congress, even to incorporate a national bank.

The marshal is obliged to give security to the United States in 20,000 dollars, for the faithful performance of the duties of his office by himself and his deputies, and, together with his deputies, to take an oath of office. By the common law, the death of the principal is a virtual repeal of the authority of the sübstitute or deputy ; but to guard against any inconvenience which might arise from the operation of this principle, and to prevent the mischiefs of a vacancy in office, the act establishing the judicial courts has provided, that in case of the death of the marshal, his deputies shall continue in office, unless otherwise especially removed, and shall execute the same in the name of the deceased marshal, until another marshal be appointed and sworn. So, a marshal, when removed from office, or his term of office expires, may still execute all process in his hands, and he remains responsible for his prisoners until they are duly delivered over to his successor. And with respect to the custody of the prisoners, under the laws of the United States, the marshal is directed to deliver his prisoners to the keeper of one of the jails of the state in which he is marshal, in cases where the legislature of the state, in conformity with the recommendation of Congress, have made it the duty of the jailers to receive them ; but where they have not, the marshal, under the direction of the district judge, is to provide his own place of security.

a Act of 24th September, 1789, sec. 27. b lbid. sec. 28.

c Resolutions of Congress, September 23d, 1789, and March 3d, 1792. See, also, the act of Congress of 6th January, 1800, and 1 Paine, 368. The marshal is bound to take from the prisoner, under United States process, bond for the limils, as in the case for prisoners under state process.

[ocr errors]






Having taken a general view of the great departments of the government of the United States, I proceed to a more precise examination of its powers and duties, and of the degree of subordination under which the state governments are constitutionally placed.

Test of conThe constitution of the United States is an instrument containing the grant of specific powers, and the government of the Union cannot claim any powers but what are contained in the grant, and given either expressly or by necessary implication. The powers vested in the state governments by their respective constitutions, or remaining with the people of the several states prior to the establishment of the constitution of the United States, continue unaltered and unimpaired, except so far as they are granted to the United States. We are to ascertain the true construction of the constitution, and the precise extent of the residuary authorities of the several states, by the declared sense and practice of the governments respectively, when there is no collision; and in all other cases where the question is of a judicial nature, we are to ascertain it by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; and those decisions ought to be studied and universally understood, in respect to all the leading questions of constitutional law. The people of the United States have declared the constitution to be the supreme law of the land, and it is entitled to universal and implicit obedience. Every act of Congress, and every act of the legislatures of the states, and every part of the constitution of any state, which is repugnant to the constitution VOL. I.


of the United States, is necessarily void. This is a clear and settled principle of constitutional jurisprudence. The judicial power of the Union is declared to extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the constitution; and to the judicial power it belongs, whenever a case is judicially before it, to determine what is the supreme law of the land. The determination of the Supreme Court of the United States, in every such case, must be final and conclusive, because the constitution gives to that tribunal the power to decide, and gives no appeal from the decision.

With respect to the judicial power, it may be generally observed, as the Supreme Court declared, in the case of Turner v. The Bank of North America,' that the disposal of the judicial power, except in a few specified cases, belongs to Congress; and the courts cannot exercise jurisdiction in every case to which the judicial power extends, without the intervention of Congress, who are not bound to enlarge the jurisdiction of the federal courts to every subject which the constitution might warrant. So again it has been decided, that Congress have not delegated the exercise of judicial power to the Circuit Courts, but in certain specified

The 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789, giving jurisdiction to the Circuit Courts, has not covered the whole ground of the constitution, and those courts cannot, for instance, issue a mandamus, but in those cases in which it may be necessary to the exercise of their jurisdiction.

The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is very the Supreme limited, and it has been decided that Congress have no

power to extend it. It is confined by the constitution to those cases which affect ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and to those in which a state is a party ;e and


Original jurisdiction of


a 4 Dallas, 8. 6 M•Intyre v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. c Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453. d Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, e Art. 3. Eec. 2,

it has been made a question, whether this original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was intended by the constitution to be exclusive. The judiciary act of 1789 seems to have considered it to be competent for Congress to vest concurrent jurisdiction, in those specified cases, in other courts ; for it gave a concurrent jurisdiction, in some of those cases, to the Circuit Courts. In the case of The United States v. Ravara," this point arose in the Circuit Court for Pennsylvania district, and it was held that Congress could vest a concurrent jurisdiction in other courts, of those very cases over which the Supreme Court had original jurisdiction; and that the word original was not to be taken to imply exclusive cognizance of the cases enumerated. But the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in Marbury v. Madison, goes far towards establishing the principle of exclusive jurisdiction in the Supreme Court in all those cases of original jurisdiction. This last case was considered, in Pennsylvania v. Kosloff, as shaking the decision in the case of Ravara ; and yet the question was still left in doubt by the Supreme Court, in the case of the The United States v. Ortega,e and a decision upon it was purposely waived.

Admitting this original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be shared by other courts in the discretion of Congress, it has been decided, as we shall presently see, that this original jurisdiction, cannot be enlarged, and that the Supreme Court cannot be vested, even by Congress, with any original jurisdiction in other cases than those described in the constitution. It is the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court that clothes it with most of its dignity and efficacy, and renders it a constant object of attention and solicitude on the

a Act of Sept. 24th, 1789, sec. 13. b 2 Dallas, 297. c1 Cranch, 137. d 5 Serg. & Rawle, 545. e 11 Wheaton, 467.

« ForrigeFortsett »