established, the appellate jurisdiction of the circuit courts was transferred to them, and they were given also a considerable portion of the appellate jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Supreme Court, the object of establishing the circuit courts of appeals being to relieve the Supreme Court of some of the business with which it was found to be overburdened.

The circuit courts of appeals have in general jurisdiction to hear appeals from the district and circuit courts in suits which are between citizens of different states, or citizens of a state and aliens; also in admiralty cases and cases under the patent, copyright, revenue, or postal laws, and in criminal cases where the crime is not capital or otherwise infamous, in which case the appeal is to the Supreme Court. With few exceptions the decision of a circuit court of appeals, in a case properly appealed to it, is conclusive, and no further appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States can be taken. The circuit courts of appeals do not entertain appeals from state or territorial courts, but only from the district and circuit courts. But an exception is made in case of the United States court in the Indian Territory, which is put on the same basis as the district and circuit

courts.

164. The Federal Supreme Court.

Under the statutory provisions now in force, the Supreme Court consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, and sits only at the national capital. By the constitution (Art. III, $2,2) the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction; original "in all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party," and appellate in other cases as provided by law.

The original jurisdiction of this court cannot be extended by statute to any cases except those mentioned in the constitution, but by statute it is made exclusive in some of those cases, to wit, cases against ambassadors or public ministers or their domestics, and also in cases to which a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, or between a state and citizens of other states or aliens. It has already been explained (above,

§ 164]

The Supreme Court.

249 § 147) that, according to the rules of international law, ambassadors and public ministers are exempt from suit in the courts of the country to which they are accredited and by which they are received, so that the only practical effect of giving to the Supreme Court exclusive jurisdiction in such cases is to prevent any other court from entertaining jurisdiction. It is to be noticed, however, that this does not apply to consuls. But, on the other hand, the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in cases affecting consuls is not made exclusive, so that it is not necessary that suits against them be brought in the Supreme Court.

As to cases in which a state is a party, the effect of the statutory provision is to give the Supreme Court exclusive original jurisdiction where a suit is brought against a state, that is, where a suit is between states, or by the United States against a state, while, on the other hand, if the suit is by a state against citizens of another state or aliens, the suit need not necessarily be in the Supreme Court, but may be in some other federal court, if any such court has jurisdiction.

The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is extensive and complicated, but may briefly be described as follows: (1) It has jurisdiction of appeals from the district or circuit courts in prize cases, in cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime, in cases involving the construction or application of the constitution of the United States, and in cases in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority is drawn in question; also in cases in which the constitution or a law of a state is claimed to be in contravention of the constitution of the United States. (2) It has jurisdiction. of appeals from a circuit court of appeals in any case certified by that court to the Supreme Court, or removed from that court to the Supreme Court by direction of the latter, and in some other cases in which appeals to the circuit courts of appeals are not final. (3) It has jurisdiction of appeals from state courts of last resort in cases involving a federal question, where the decision of the state court is against the validity of a statute or

treaty of or authority exercised under the United States, or in favor of the validity of a statute of or authority exercised under any state, where the validity of such statute or authority is called in question as being repugnant to the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, or where the decision is against any title, right, privilege, or immunity claimed under the constitution, statutes, treaties, or authority of the United States. (See above, § 158.) (4) It has jurisdiction of appeals from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or the supreme courts of the territories, with limitations as to amount in controversy which need not be here particularly specified. (5) It has jurisdiction of appeals from the court of claims, or from district or circuit courts in cases against the United States, with some limitation as to the amount in controversy. There are some other classes of cases in which the Supreme Court exercises an appellate jurisdiction which need not be here particularly enumerated.

165. Other Courts Created by Congress.

The courts which have been described in this chapter, the Supreme Court being one of them, constitute all the courts which exercise the judicial power of the federal government, as specifically prescribed in the constitution.

But in the exercise

of the authority vested in Congress, either expressly or by implication, in other portions of the constitution, Congress has created other judicial tribunals. Under the power to legislate for the District of Columbia, it has provided a system of courts for that district. Under the authority to make rules and regulations for the government of territory of the United States, outside of the limits of any state, it has provided for territorial courts. Under authority derived by certain treaties with Turkey, China, and some other non-Christian nations, it has given jurisdiction to consuls of the United States in those countries to try citizens of the United States for offences committed there, and also to determine civil suits to which citizens of the United States are parties. (See Ross v. McIntyre.) And under the authority to provide for the payment of claims

§ 166]

Additional.

251

against the United States, it has created a court of claims, in which claimants may have an adjudication as to the justice and legality of their demands. (See above, § 149.)

166. United States Commissioners and Magistrates. The circuit courts may appoint commissioners, often termed United States Commissioners, who are authorized to exercise various powers conferred upon them, such as the taking of affidavits, the issuance of warrants of arrest for crime under the laws of the United States, and the taking of bail in such cases. These commissioners are also given certain powers in admiralty cases, and in regard to other matters, which need not be particularly described.

The justices and judges of the federal courts, and the judges, justices of the peace, and other magistrates of a state, as well as the United States Commissioners just described, are authorized to cause the arrest of offenders against the laws of the United States and to admit them to bail.

Various courts and judges of the United States and of the states are authorized to issue certificates of naturalization to aliens applying therefor and complying with the naturalization laws. (See above, § 100.)

CHAPTER XXIX.

THE LAW ADMINISTERED IN THE FEDERAL COURTS.

167. References.

J. Story, Constitution, §§ 1748-1759; J. I. C. Hare, Constitutional Law, lect. li; James Kent, Commentaries, lect. xvi; James Bryce, American Commonwealth, ch. xxiii; T. M. Cooley, Constitutional Law (3d ed.), 152, 159; H. C. Black, Constitutional Law, §§ 93-96; The Federalist, No. 82; Swift v. Tyson (1842, 16 Peters, 1; 14 Curtis' Decisions, 166; McClain's Cases, 796); Railroad Company v. National Bank (1880, 102 U. S. 14; McClain's Cases, 800); Burgess v. Seligman (1883, 107 U. S. 20, McClain's Cases, 805; Thayer's Cases, 1545); Smith v. Alabama (1888, 124 U. S. 465; McClain's Cases, 812; Thayer's Cases, 2068); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co. (1901, 181 U. S. 92; 21 Sup. Court Reporter, 561); Riggs v. Johnson County (1867, 6 Wallace, 166; McClain's Cases, 784).

168. Distinction between Law and Equity.

In actions at law the federal courts follow in general the procedure provided for their own tribunals by the states in which they sit; but in equity cases the federal courts follow their own rules of procedure, which are founded on the practice in the chancery courts of Great Britain as they existed at the time of the adoption of the federal constitution. The result is that the equity practice of the federal courts is uniform throughout the Union, and is governed by the rules and decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States; while in law cases the practice is not uniform, but depends on the laws of the various states in which the courts are held. This distinction depends on statutory provisions, and is made for convenience in the practical administration of justice. (See above, § 146.)

169. The Common Law and the Law of the States.

In cases arising under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States, and depending for their decision on the