« AnteriorContinuar »
the United States and of the State wherein they reside ; and it forbids any State to make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, or to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 2. It provides that when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President or Vice-President of the United States, representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or is in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of congressional representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. 3. It disqualifies from holding Federal or State offices certain persons who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. 4. It declares the inviolability of the public debt of the United States, and forbids the United States or any State assuming or paying any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave. The fifteenth amendment declares that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
See, as to these amendments, closing cattle intended for slaughter, Story on Const. (4th ed.) c. 46, 47, 48, within certain specified parishes: Live and App. to Vol. II. The new amend- Stock, &c. Association v. Crescent ments do not enlarge the privilege of City, &c. Co., 16 Wall. 36; nor by suffrage so as to entitle women to denying the right of jury trial in vote. Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. State courts: Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 130; Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. U. S. Rep. 90. Since these amend162. They do not entitle persons as ments, as before, sovereignty for the of right to sell intoxicating drinks protection of life and personal liberty against the prohibitions of State laws. within the respective States rests Barbemeyer v. lowa, 18 Wall. 129. alone with the States, and the United They are not violated by the grant by States cannot take cognizance of invaa State, under its police power, of an sions of the privilege of suffrage when exclusive right for a term of years to race, color, or previous condition of have and maintain slaughter-houses, suffrage is not the ground thereof. landings for cattle, and yards for in- United States o. Reese, 92 U. S. Rep. The executive power is vested in a president, who is made commander-in-chief of the army and navy, and of the militia of the several States when called into the service of the United States; and who has power, by and with the consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senate concur, and, with the same advice and consent, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not otherwise provided for.1
The judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law and equity arising under the national Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States;
a between a State and citizens of another State ; between citizens of different States ; between citizens of the same State claiming
lands under grants of different States; and between a * [*12] * State or citizens thereof and foreign States, citizens
or subjects. But a State is not subject to be sued in the courts of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign State.3
The Constitution and the laws of the United States, made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made under the authority of the United States, are declared to be the supreme law of the land ; and the judges of every State are to be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. 4
214; United States v. Cruiksbanks, Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. 331. 92 U. S. Rep. 512. See, further, When a treaty has been ratified by Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. Rep. the proper formalities, it is, by the 480; Railroad Co. v. Brown, 17 Wall. Constitution, the supremne law of the 446.
land, and the courts have no power 1 U. S. Const. art. 2.
to inquire into the authority of the U. S. Const. art. 3, $ 2.
persons by whom it was entered into 8 U. S. Const. 11th Amendment. on behalf of the foreign nation: Doe
4 U. S. Const. art. 6; Owings 0. v. Braden, 16 How. 635, 657; or the Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, 318; powers or rights recognized by it in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. the nation with which it was made: 316; Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, Maiden v. Ingersoll, 6 Mich. 373. A 314; Cook v. Moffat, 5 How. 295; State law in conflict with it must give
It is essential to the protection of the national jurisdiction, and to prevent collision between State and national authority, that the final decision upon all questions arising in regard thereto should rest with the courts of the Union; and as such questions must frequently arise first in the State courts, provision is made by the Judiciary Act for removing to the Supreme Court of the United States the final judgment or decree in any suit, rendered in the highest court of law or equity of a State in which a decision could be had, in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty, or statute of, or authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution or any treaty or statute of or commission held or authority exercised under the United States, and the decision is against the * title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up (* 13] or claimed by either party under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority.2
But to authorize the removal under that act, it must appear by the record, either expressly or by clear and necessary intendment, that some one of the enumerated questions did arise in the State court, and was there passed upon. It is not sufficient that it might have arisen or been applicable. And if the decision of
way to its superior authority. Ware v. Norton, 3 Marsh. 423; Braynard r. r. Hylton, 3 Dall. 99; Yeaker v. Marshall, 8 Pick. 196,
per Parker, Yeaker, 4 Met. (Ky.) 33; People o. Ch. J.; Spangler's Case, 11 Mich. Gerke, 5 Cal. 381. See, further, 298; Tarble's Case, 13 Wall. 397. United States v. Aredondo, 6 Pet. · Acts 1789 and 1867; R. S. 1875, 691; United States 1. Percheman, 7 $ 709. Pet. 51; Garcia v. Lee, 12 Pet. 511; Owings v. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Ropes v. Clinch, 8 Blatch. 304; United Cranch, 314; Martin v. Hunter's LesStates v. Tobacco Factory, 1 Dill. see, 1 Wheat. 304; Inglee v. Coolidge, 261; The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 2 Wheat. 363; Miller v. Nicholls, 4 616. In this last case it is decided, Wheat. 311; Williams Norris, as before it had been at the Circuit, 12 Wheat. 117; Hickie v. Starke, 1 that a law of Congress repugnant to Pet. 98; Harris v. Dennie, 3 Pet. 292; a treaty, to that extent abrogates it. Fisher's Lessee v. Cockerell, 5 Pet.
Martin 0. Hunter's J.essee, 1 256; New Orleans v. De Armas, 9 Wheat. 304, 331; Cohens v. Virginia, Pet. 223, 234; Keene v. Clarke, 10 6 Wheat. 264; Bank of United States Pet. 291; Crowell v. Randell, 10 Pet.
the State court is in favor of the right, title, privilege, or exemption so claimed, the Judiciary Act does not authorize such removal. Neither does it where the validity of the State law is drawn in question, and the decision of the State court is against its validity.
But the same reasons which require that the final decision upon all questions of national jurisdiction should be left to the national courts will also hold the national courts bound to respect the decisions of the State courts upon all questions arising under the State constitutions and laws, where no question of national authority is involved, and to accept those decisions as correct, and to follow them whenever the same questions arise in the national courts. With the power to revise the decisions of the
368; McKinny v. Carroll, 12 Pet. 66; 64. We take no notice here of the Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540; statutes for the removal of causes Scott v. Jones, 5 How. 343; Smith v. from the State to the Federal courts Hunter, 7 How. 738; Williams v. for the purposes of original trial, as Oliver, 12 How. 111; Calcote v. Stan- they are not important to any discuston, 18 How. 243; Maxwell v. New- sion we shall have occasion to enter bold, 18 How. 511; Hoyt v. Shelden, upon in this work. 1 Black, 518; Farney v. Towle, 1 3 In Beauregard v. New Orleans, Black, 350; Day v. Gallup, 2 Wall. 18 How. 502, Mr. Justice Campbell 97; Walker v. Villavaso, 6 Wall. 124; says: “ The constitution of this court The Victory, 6 Wall. 382; Hamilton requires it to follow the laws of the Co. v. Mass., 6 Wall. 632; Gibson v. several States as rules of decision Choteau, 8 Wall. 314; Worthy v. wherever they apply. And the habit Commissioners, 9 Wall. 611; Messen- of the court has been to defer to the ger v. Mason, 10 Wall. 507 ; Insur- decisions of their judicial tribunals ance Co. v. Treasurer, 11 Wall. 204; upon questions arising out of the comMcManus v. O'Sullivan, 91 U. S Rep. mon law of the State, especially when 578; Bolling v. Lersner, 91 U. S. Rep. applied to the title of lands.” In Bank 594. It is not sufficient that the pre- of Hamilton v. Dudley's Lessee, 2 Pet. siding judge of the State court certifies 524, it was contended that the excluthat a right claimed under the national sive power of State courts to construe authority was brought in question. legislative acts did not extend to the Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177; paramount law, so as to enable them Parmelee v. Lawrence, 11 Wall. 36. to give efficacy to an act which was
i Gordon v. Caldcleugh, 3 Cranch, contrary to the State constitution; but 268; McDonough v. Millaudon, 3 Marshall, Ch. J., said: “We cannot How. 693; Fulton v. McAffee, 16 Pet admit this distinction. The judicial 149; Linton v. Stanton, 12 How. 423; department of every government is Burke v. Gaines, 19 How. 388; Red- the rightful expositor of its laws, and dall v. Bryan, 24 How. 420; Roose- emphatically of its supreme law.” velt v. Meyer, 1 Wall. 512; Ryan v. Again, in Elmendorf v. Taylor, 10 Thomas, 4 Wall. 603.
Wheat. 159, the same eminent judge 2 Commonwealth Bank v. Griffith, says : “ The judicial department of 14 Pet. 56; Walker v. Taylor, 5 How. every government, where such depart[ * 14]
State * courts in the cases already pointed out, the due observance of this rule will prevent those collisions of
ment exists, is the appropriate organ 351; Waring v. Jackson, 1 Pet. 570; for construing the legislative acts of DeWolf v. Rabaud, 1 Pet. 476;.Fulthat government. Thus no court in lerton v. Bank of United States, 1 the universe which proposed to be gov. Pet. 604; Gardner v. Collins, 2 Pet. erned by principle would, we presume, 58; Beach v. Viles, 2 Pet. 675; Inglis undertake to say that the courts of V. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99; Great Britain or France, or of any United States v. Morrison, 4 Pet. 121; other nation, had misunderstood their Henderson v. Griffin, 5 Pet. 151; own statutes, and therefore erect it- Hinde v. Vattier, 5 Pet. 398; Ross v. self into a tribunal which should correct McLung, 6 Pet. 283; Marlatt v. Silk, such misunderstanding. We receive 11 Pet. 1; Bank of United States v. the construction given by the courts Daniel, 12 Pet. 32; Clarke v. Smith, of the nation as the true sense of the 13 Pet. 195; Ross v. Duval, 13 Pet. law, and feel ourselves no more at lib- 45; Wilcox v. Jackson, 13 Pet. 498; erty to depart from that construction Harpending v. Reformed Church, 16 than to depart from the words of the Pet. 445; Martin v. Waddell, 16 Pet. statute. On this principle, the con- 367; Amis v. Smith, 16 Pet. 303; Porstruction given by this court to the terfield v. Clark, 2 How. 76; Lane v. Constitution and laws of the United Vick, 3 How. 464; Foxcroft v. MalStates is received by all as the true lett, 4 How. 353; Barry v. Mercein, 5 construction; and on the same princi- How. 103 ; Rowan v. Runnells, 5 How. ple the construction given by the courts 134; Van Rensselaer v. Kearney, of the several States to the legislative 11 How. 297; Pease v. Peck, 18 How. acts of those States is received as true, 595; Fisher v. Haldeman, 20 How. unless they come in conflict with the 186; Parker v. Kane, 22 How. 1; SuyConstitution, laws, or treaties of the dam v. Williainson, 24 How. 421 ; United States." And in Green v. Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532; ChiNeal's Lessee, 6 Pet. 298, it is said by cago v. Robbins, 2 Black, 418; Miles McLean, J.: The decision of the v. Caldwell, 2 Wall. 35; Williams v. highest judicial tribunal of a State Kirkland, 13 Wall. 306; Walker v. should be considered as final by this Harbor Com’rs, 17 Wall. 648; Supercourt, not because the State tribunal visors v. United States, 18 Wall. 71; in such a case has any power to bind Springer v. Foster, 2 Story C.C. 383; this court, but because, in the lan- Neal v. Green, 1 McLean, 18; Paine guage of the court in Shelby v. Guy, v. Wright, 6 McLean, 395; Boyle v. 11 Wheat. 361, a fixed and received Arledge, Hemp. 620; Griffing v. Gibb, construction by a State, in its own McAll. 212; Bayerquev. Cohen, McAll. courts, makes a part of the statute 113; Wick v. The Samuel Strong, law.” And see Jackson v. Chew, 12 Newb. 187; N. F. Screw Co. v. Bliven, Wheat. 162, per Thompson, J.; also 3 Blatch. 240; Bronson v. Wallace, 4 the following cases : Sims v. Irvine, Blatch. 465; Van Bokelen v. Brooklyn 3 Dall. 425; McKeen v. Delancy, 5 City R. R. Co., 5 Blatch. 379; United Cranch, 22 ; Polk's Lessee v. Wendal, States v. Mann, 1 Gall. 5 ; Society, &c. 9 Cranch, 87; Preston o. Browder, 1 v. Wheeler, 2 Gall. 105; Coates v. Wheat. 115; Mutual Assurance Co. v. Muse, Brock. 539; Meade v. Beale, Watts, 1 Wheat. 279; Shipp v. Miller, Taney, 339; Loring v. Marsh, 2 Cliff. 2 Wheat. 316; Thatcher v. Powell, 6 311; Parker v. Phetteplace, 2 Cliff. Wheat. 119; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 70; King v. Wilson, 1 Dill. 555. In