within the judicial cognizance of the United States. It is clear that the Constitution contemplated that such cases would not only arise in the state courts in the ordinary exercise of their concurrent jurisdiction, but that those tribunals would incidentally take cognizance of questions of which the courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction. Inasmuch, therefore, as the judicial power of the Union extends to both the above specified classes of cases, it follows, as a necessary consequence, that the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Courts must and does extend to the state tribunals, and attach to every case within the Federal judicial power. All the enumerated cases of Federal cognizance are those which touch the safety, peace, and sovereignty of the Union, or in which it may be presumed that state attachments, prejudices, jealousies, or interests might sometimes obstruct or control the regular administration of justice. To all such cases the appellate power is applied on the plainest principles of policy and wisdom; and this is requisite to fulfil effectually the great and beneficial ends of the Constitution; and especially to give efficacy to the power of deciding in all cases of conflict between the several states, or collision between powers claimed by a state and those claimed by the General Government; and especially to maintain the declared supremacy of the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the Union over the constitution and laws of the respective states. The existence of such a power was, moreover, deemed necessary to preserve uniformity of decision throughout the United States upon all subjects within the purview of the Constitution; and to prevent the mischiefs of opposite constructions and contradictory decisions in the several states on these points of general concern.

The appellate power of the Federal judiciary over the state tribunals does not, however, extend to a final judgment in a state court on a question arising under the authority of the Union, although a state be a party; because that jurisdiction was given to the Federal Courts in two classes of cases; in the one, it depends on the character of the cause, whosoever may be the parties; in the other, it depends entirely on the character of the parties, and then the subject of the controversy is wholly unimportant. In the celebrated case of the Georgia Missionaries,* where the validity, or, at least, the construction of the treaties made by the United States with the Cherokee Indians, was drawn in question in the highest court of that state, and the decision had been, if not "against their validity," against a "right, privilege, and exemption claimed under them;" and where had also been drawn in question the validity of a law of Georgia, on the ground of its being "repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, and laws of the United States," and the decision had been “in favour of its validity;" it was considered by the Supreme Court too clear for controversy, that the judiciary act of Congress had given it the power, and, of course, imposed on it the duty, of exercising an appellate jurisdiction in the case, notwithstanding it arose upon a criminal prosecution, in the state court, founded upon an act of the State Legislature. The law of Georgia was held to be repugnant to the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States; and the chief-justice, who delivered the opinion of the court, declared that its jurisdiction was no less clear in that case than in civil cases. He considered the parties not less interested in the operation of

* 6 Peters's Rep., 515.

this unconstitutional law than if it had affected their property; nor less entitled to the protection of the General Government, when the judgment of the state court affected their personal liberty, and inflicted a disgraceful punishment. The court, therefore, ordered the proceedings against the mission aries to be annulled, and that they should be released from their imprisonment. The special mandate issued to the court below, to carry that judgment into effect, was not obeyed, and compulsory proceedings were in progress to enforce it, when the matter was compromised by the discharge of the missionaries, upon their withdrawing the suits they had commenced against the state officers for their detention.

In a more recent case, the Supreme Court observed that if the state legislatures may annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and the rights thereby acquired, the Constitution becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by its own tribunals: so fatal a result must be deprecated by all; and the people of every state must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive to the Union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.*

The Supreme Court is also clothed with that superintending authority over the subordinate courts of the United States, which should be deposited in the highest tribunal and last resort of the people for justice. It has power to issue prohibitory writs to the District Courts, when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and mandatory process in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts established, or persons

* 12 Peter's Rep., 357.

holding office under the authority of the United States. The Supreme Court, and all the Federal Courts, have power to issue all writs not specially provided by statute, which may be necessary for the exercise of their respective jurisdictions, and conformable to the principles and usages of law; and the individual judges of all of them may, by writ of Habeas Corpus, relieve all persons from all manner of unjust imprisonment or restraint occurring under, or by colour of, the authority of the United States.

Under the power granted to Congress of erecting tribunals subordinate to the Supreme Court, two descriptions of inferior courts, differing materially in the nature and extent of their respective jurisdictions, have been established. For this purpose, the United States have been divided into nine judicial circuits; and each circuit consists of three or more districts; each district, for the most part, comprises an entire state; but in some of the larger and more populous states there are two districts. Some districts are not embraced within any circuit, and have only District Courts; which, however, exercise the powers of a Circuit Court within their respective districts, except in cases of error and appeal. In the District of Columbia, which comprises the territory ceded to the United States for the seat of the Federal Government, there is both a Circuit and a District Court, specially and differently organized for that district. The former is composed of a chiefjustice and two associate judges, from whose decisions writs of error and appeals lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. The jurisdiction vested in these courts respectively, corresponds with that vested in the Circuit and District Courts established or the Union at large.

II. The Circuit Courts are held annually in each

judicial district by a justice of the Supreme Court, assigned by law to the particular circuit, and the judge of the district, for which the court is held. But the Supreme Court may, in cases where special circumstances in their judgment render it necessary, assign two justices of the Supreme Court to attend the Circuit Court. If a vacancy happen by the death of the justice of the Supreme Court to whom the circuit is allotted, the district judge may, under the act of Congress, discharge all the duties of the Circuit Court for his district, except that he cannot sit upon a writ of error, or upon an appeal from his own court; and where the district judge is absent, or has been of counsel, or is interested in the cause, the Circuit Court may be holden by the justice of the Supreme Court alone. If an opposition of opinions between the justice of the Supreme Court and the district judge occurs, in a case in which the Circuit Court has original jurisdiction, the point on which they disagree is directed by law to be certified to the Supreme Court; whereupon the cause is removed into that court for final judgment or decree; but in all cases of appeal or removal from a District to a Circuit Court, judgment is to be rendered in the latter according to the opinion of the justice of the Supreme Court presiding therein.

The Circuit Courts, thus organized, are invested with original and exclusive jurisdiction, except in certain cases hereafter mentioned, of all crimes and ofences cognizable under the authority of the United States, exceeding the degree of ordinary misdemeanours; and of those, they have concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts. They have original cognizance, concurrently with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature at common law, or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds a certain