when they claim under grants of different states. This is the only case in which the Constitution gives jurisdiction directly to the Federal Courts, over cases between citizens of the same state. The reason is, that it contemplates a case in which the laws and boundaries of different states are brought into question, and upon which, therefore, the state tribunals are not unbiased.

§ 347. 6. "Foreign states, citizens, and subjects" may be parties. Who is a foreign citizen or subject? or who is an alien? Any person who is not a citizen of the United States is an alien. But when he is naturalized, he is no longer an alien; for this is a case provided for by the Constitution and the laws: and it makes no difference whether he sues in his own name or as a trustee.

§ 348. A foreign corporation established in a foreign country, all of whose members are aliens, can sue in the

same manner.

§ 349. The jurisdiction vests, however, only when one party to a suit is a citizen.1 Alien enemies, however, cannot sue; their right is suspended until peace. §350. Jurisdiction in relation to the subject matter is Original, or Appellate.

The court has original jurisdiction in all cases concerning ambassadors, public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state is the party; in all others it has appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, under such regulations and exceptions as Congress shall make. This jurisdiction cannot, by the words of the Constitution, be exercised without the intervention of Congress; but Congress are bound by that part of the clause which refers to "all cases," to confer all the jurisdiction granted by the Constitution, in some form or other, upon the Supreme Court. By the act of September, 1789, this was done, and the Supreme Court have exercised their appropriate powers uninterruptedly since.

§ 351. This original jurisdiction is confined to the 1 Story's Comm. 571.

enumerated cases, and cannot be enlarged by Congress. Congress cannot give it appellate jurisdiction, when the Constitution has given it original, nor original where it has appellate jurisdiction.' The grant of original jurisdiction is exclusive, and negatives any enlargement.

§ 352. Whether the original jurisdiction vested in the Supreme Court may not be exercised concurrently by the inferior courts, is an undecided point.2

§ 353. Another question is, whether the court can exercise appellate jurisdiction in those cases where it has original jurisdiction;3 and it is thought it can.

§ 354. What is appellate jurisdiction? "The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is, that it revives and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that cause." The appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms,indeed in any form which the Legislature may prescribe. But the substance must exist before the form can be applied. Where the object is to review a judicial proceeding, the mode is immaterial; and a writ of habeas corpus, or mandamus, a writ of error, or an appeal may be used, as the Legislature may prescribe."

§ 355. The most usual modes of exercising appellate jurisdiction are writs of error, appeals, or some process of removal. An appeal removes the entire cause, fact, or will, or law for a review and new trial. A writ of Error removes nothing for re-examination but the law.

§ 356. The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court extends to the decisions of the State Courts. By the act of September 1789, Sect. 25, it is declared that the final judgment or decree of the state courts may be re-examined and reversed, or affirmed in those cases in which is drawn in question the validity or construction

13 Madison vs. Marbury, 1 Cranch, 137; 1 Kent's Comm. 302. 211 Wheaton, 467. 33 Story's Comm. 576. 4 Id.; 6 Wheaton's Rep.; 2 Peters' Supreme C. R. 449; Ingersoll's Digest, 375. 63 Dallas, 342; 1 Wheaton, 304

of a treaty, and the decision is against the right, title, or privilege set up, or claimed under it; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute, or an authority exercised under a state, on the ground of their being adverse to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity. Such cases may be brought up on writ of Error; and such writ has the same effect as if directed to the Circuit Court of the United States.

§ 357. Hence, if the highest court in a state reverse the judgment of a subordinate court, and, on appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, the judgment of the highest court in a state be reversed, it becomes a nullity, and a mandate issues to the inferior court for execution.1 The record in such cases must show the

error, by showing some act of jurisdiction.

§ 358. Jurisdiction in respect to locality. Here we may consider, 1st, Within what boundaries the authority of the United States Courts is limited; 2d, The maritime and admiralty jurisdiction of the courts.

§ 359. 1. What are the territorial limits of jurisdiction? The limits of jurisdiction, as it respects the Supreme Court, are the limits of the United States, for the decisions of all other courts, whether territorial, district, or state, are within the rules as to subject and parties already laid down and are subject to revision in that tribunal; except that, in the Territorial Courts, no appeal lies from their decisions without a special statutory provision. The territories are under the sole and absolute control of Congress.2

§ 360. The district court has cognizance of crimes and offences, which are cognizable by the United States tribunals, and which are committed within the respective districts, or on the high seas.

§ 361. The District Courts have also admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the high seas, and also within 13 Dallas, 342; 1 Wheaton, 304. 21 Kent's Comm. 360.

waters leading from them, and in which vessels of ten tons burden may navigate.1

§ 362. The concurrent jurisdiction of the state and national courts has also been a subject of some difficulty.

It is settled, that no part of the criminal jurisdiction of the United States can be delegated to state tribunals: and the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is of the same exclusive cognizance. It can only be in those cases where, previous to the Constitution, state tribunals possessed jurisdiction independent of national authority, that they can now exercise a concurrent jurisdiction.2

§ 363. State courts may, in the exercise of their ordinary jurisdiction, incidentally take cognizance of cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States: but the United States courts have appellate jurisdiction.

§ 364. Where the jurisdiction is concurrent, the sentence of either court, whether of conviction or acquittal, may be pleaded in bar of a prosecution before the other. So also the judgment of a state court in a civil case of concurrent jurisdiction, may be pleaded in bar of an action for the same cause, instituted in a Circuit Court of the United States.3

§ 365. The conclusion then is, that in judicial matters the concurrent jurisdiction of the state tribunals depends altogether upon the pleasure of Congress, and may be revoked and extinguished whenever they think proper, in every case in which the subject matter can constitutionally be cognizable in the federal courts; and that, without an express provision to the contrary, the state courts will retain a concurrent jurisdiction in all cases where they had jurisdiction originally over the subject matter."4

1 Act of Sept. 1789. 35 Wheaton, 1.

21 Kent's Comm. 372; 1 Wheaton, 304. 4 1 Kent's Comm. 374.

§ 366. Various acts of Congress give jurisdiction to state courts and magistrates in both civil cases, and for fines and forfeitures under the laws of the United States; but the state courts are not bound to assume jurisdiction in such cases.1

§ 367. It has been questioned whether the state courts could issue a Habeas Corpus, and exercise jurisdiction in a case where the imprisonment was by an officer of the United States, or under pretext of the authority of the United States. The state courts, however, have exercised such jurisdiction, although no final decision has been had upon the question.2

§ 368. No state court can issue an injunction upon any judgment in a court of the United States:3 nor can the state legislature annul the judgments, or destroy the rights acquired under them, or determine the extent of their jurisdiction. Nor can a state court, or authority, prescribe the rules or forms of proceedings, nor cffect of process in the courts of the United States: nor issue a mandamus to an officer of the United States to compel him to perform duties devolved upon him by the laws of the United States."

§ 369. On the other hand, the national courts have no authority (in cases not within the appellate jurisdiction of the United States), to issue injunctions upon judgments in the state courts; or in any manner to interfere with their jurisdiction and proceedings."

§ 370. It is a question unsettled, whether the United States courts have a Common Law jurisdiction? In the case of the United States vs. Hudson & Goodwin, tried for a libel on the President, the Supreme Court decided, by a majority, that they had no Common Law jurisdic

11 Kent's Comm. 375.

2 Idem; 10 Johnson's Rep. 328; 5 Hall's Law Journal, 82; 11 Mass. Reports, 68. 3 3 Story's Comm. 624; 7 Cranch, 279.

45 Cranch, 115. 66 Wheaton, 598. $ 7 Craneh, 32.

5 10 Wheaton, 21, 22, 51.

73 Story's Commentaries, 626.