state court (Ableman vs. Booth, Howard, XXI., 506). They can be sued before their own courts only at their own pleasure, that is, only in those cases where the federal laws permit. Land bought by the United States within a state and used for no particular purpose is subject like private property to condemnation for public purposes under the authority of the state.

$66. CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN TWO OR MORE STATES. This provision is unquestionably of the utmost importance, for in case of a controversy between states, neither would be willing to commit the decision unconditionally to a court of the other. Just because a peaceful determination of such conflicts could only be assured by making them subject to the legal supremacy of the Union, the omission of the word "all" might become under certain circumstances of much significance. Since the abolition of slavery and the annihilation of the doctrine of state sovereignty in its old form - by the result of the civil war, it is much less to be feared than formerly, that a controversy can ever arise between the states, in which the jurisdiction of the federal courts might be seriously and energetically disputed. Their jurisdiction over questions of boundary between the states has been established for many years by quite a number of decisions of the federal supreme court.

The legal controversies enumerated in the remaining provisions of the constitution all belong to those placed under the jurisdiction of the federal courts for reasons of expediency. Moreover, the decisions of the federal courts in these cases do not bind the state courts, which always have concurrent jurisdiction in them. The federal courts as a rule, as I have stated, follow the state courts in these cases, but there is no uniformity of legal decision in them.

67. CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE AND CITIZENS OF ANOTHER STATE. It is not sufficient that a state be interested in a legal controversy; it must be a party to it. According to the original and undoubtedly the correct interpretation of this constitutional provision by the supreme court (Chisholm vs. Georgia, Dallas, II., 419), a state could be brought before the federal courts not only as plaintiff but as defendant. Public opinion was against this and the eleventh amendment was adopted. This withdrew from federal jurisdiction suits against a state by citizens of another state or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. This amendment has led to serious complications, for different states have repeatedly failed to comply with their obligations as debtors. Attempts were recently made (1883) to bring them before the federal supreme court by having the owners of their defaulted securities assign the bonds to their own states which were then to appear as plaintiffs. The supreme court, however, has decided (New Hampshire vs. Louisiana and New York vs. Louisiana) that this was inadmissible, because it would be an evasion of the eleventh amendment. Whether the agitation begun to repeal the amendment will succeed, remains to be seen; but this can scarcely be hoped for, as quite a number of the states are at present directly interested in maintaining it. This amendment does not, however, prevent appeals to the federal supreme court if the decision of the state court has brought into question rights, titles, etc., under the constitution, the federal laws or treaties (Cohens vs. Virginia, Wheaton, VI., 264). A suit may be brought against a corporation chartered by a state, even if the state holds all the stock (Bank of Kentucky vs. Wister, Peters, II., 318).

1 Osborn vs. Bank of United States, Wheaton, IX., 738.

GS. CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF DIFFERENT STATES. The expression "citizen " is not to be understood here literally. It means "inhabitant." Even corporations are regarded as inhabitants. Inhabitants of the territories or of the District of Columbia, however, are not included. The jurisdiction granted by this provision to the federal courts has been by no means put in full force by congress in its legislation.

$69. CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN CITIZENS OF THE SAME STATE CLAIMING LANDS UNDER GRANTS OF DIFFERENT STATES. This provision also applies when the states concerned originally constituted one state.

$70. CONTROVERSIES BETWEEN A STATE OR ITS CITIZENS AND FOREIGN STATES, CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS. Foreign corporations, and also immigrants who have declared their intention of becoming citizens, are "foreign," within the meaning of this clause.

PRACTICE AND PLEADING.

871. RULES OF PRACTICE were almost wholly left to congress to determine. But on one substantial point the constitution has given congress no discretion. "In all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party, the supreme court shall have original jurisdiction" (art. III., sec. 2, § 2). These cases are the exceptions to the rule, according to which the judicial power of the United States can come into operation only after legislation by congress. Congress is authorized, here, as every where else, to enact the more definitive provisions of procedure, but if it does not do so, the supreme court may itself provide the modus procedendi (Florida vs. Georgia, Howard, XVII., 478). It is uncertain whether or no the constitution intended that this original jurisdiction should

also have been exclusive. Jurists' opinions differ, and so do judicial decisions. The affirmative view has always had the more support, but legislation has not fully come up to it. For while a suit against embassadors, consuls, etc., can be maintained only in the supreme court, they may bring suits in other courts as well. On the other hand, it is generally admitted that congress cannot extend the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. The extent of its jurisdiction in appeals is practically left wholly to the discretion of congress. The constitution says: "In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make." Congress must therefore give original jurisdiction to other federal courts, as far as this is not granted in the first sentence to the supreme court. Congress may also give them an appellate jurisdiction. The supreme court has this appellate jurisdiction only so far as it is expressly granted by the laws. The circuit courts, consequently, sit in some cases as courts of first as well as last resort. A case in which a jury has rendered a verdict does not come within the category of those in which the supreme court may reexamine a question of fact on appeal. The seventh amendment, to be hereafter discussed, establishes this.

1 Details as to practice and pleading in the different federal courts are beyond the scope of this work. The most necessary are grouped in Cooley, Principles, 120 et seq. Among the comprehensive books on the subject are: St. D. Law, The Jurisdiction and Powers of the U. S. Courts, Albany, 1852; G. T. Curtis, Commentaries on the United States Courts, Phila., 1854; A. Conkling, Treatise on the Organization, Jurisdiction and Practice of the Courts of the U. S., 5th ed., Albany, 1870; B. R. Curtis, Jurisdiction, Practice and Peculiar Jurisprudence of the Courts of the U. S., Boston, 1880; R. Desty, Federal Procedure, 5th ed., San Francisco, 1881.

The United States therefore cannot appeal in a criminal case, for in "crimes" - impeachments, of course, excepted the decision must be by jurors (art. III., sec. 2, §3). Everything which is a crime by the common law or state laws does not come within the limits of this paragraph of the constitution. It refers only to those crimes which are within the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The conditions precedent of the exercise of this jurisdiction are that the act in question has been declared to be' a crime by federal law, and that congress has conferred the requisite jurisdiction upon a certain court.1 In the latter respect, congress has not complete freedom of action. If the crime was committed in a state, the trial must take place within that state and in the particular federal district. If the crime was not committed in a place geographically or legally within a state, but in a territory, in the District of Columbia, in Indian Territory, in a fort, arsenal or other place subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, then the place of trial must have been fixed by law.

EXPRESS LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY AND PROHIBI

TIONS.

Many of the provisions belonging under this head have already been treated elsewhere, and may therefore remain unnoted here. So, too, those provisions which concern the rights and legal safeguards of individuals will be passed over here, because they are to be treated in a special section.

872. BILLS OF ATTAINDER AND EX POST FACTO LAWS. "No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed' (art. I., sec. 9, § 3). It is not stated who is forbidden to

1 U. S. vs. Coolidge, Wheaton, I., 315; U. S. vs. Hudson and Goodwin, Cranch, VII., 32.

2 Sixth amendment.