other original jurisdiction can be conferred upon it by law. The jurisdiction of the inferior Courts of the United States, and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is such only as the statutes of the United States confer upon them.5 While the Constitution provides that "the judicial power shall extend to" certain enumerated cases, this judicial power (except the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court) lies dormant unless Congress provides by law for its exercise. 4 Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch | to jurisdiction exclusively con137, 2 L. 60. ferred on another, or withheld from "The powers of the general government are made up of concessions from the several States; whatever is not expressly given to the former, the latter expressly reserve. The judicial power of the United States is a constituent part of those concessions; that power is to be exercised by Courts organized for the purpose, and brought into existence by an effort of the legislative power of the Union. Of all the Courts which the United States may, under their general powers, constitute, one only-the Supreme Court-possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other Courts created by the general government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer." United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L. 259. all. "The Constitution has defined the limits of the judicial power of the United States, but has not prescribed how much of it shall be exercised by the Circuit Court; consequently, the statute which does prescribe the limits of their jurisdiction, cannot be in conflict with the Constitution, unless it confers powers not enumerated therein. "Such has been the doctrine held by this Court since its first establishment." Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 12 L. 1147. 6 Ante § 2. 7" The clause of the Constitution relied on as conferring jurisdiction in cases arising under the laws of the United States, does not import a self-executing power. It belongs clearly to that class of powers of which there are many in the Constitution, which are dormant and inoperative until vitality and vigor are imparted to them by the action of the legislative department of the government. . . . Until ConCongress may withhold from gress shall designate the Court in any Court of its creation jurisdic- which jurisdiction shall vest, and tion of any of the enumerated con- shall declare in what manner it troversies. Courts created by stat- shall be exercised, the Constituute can have no jurisdiction but tional provision cited cannot be such as the statute confers. No operative." Roback v. Taylor, 20 one of them can assert a just claim Fed. Cas. 852, 2 Bond 36, 14 66 The jurisdiction of the United States Courts (except in the particular stated) is statutory only.8 In other words, to use the language of the head-note, the Courts of the United States are Courts of limited jurisdiction. But they Pittsb. Leg. J. 137, 4 Int. Rev. Rec. | Fed. Cas. 781, 3 Blatchf. 84, 25 Vt. 170. 715, 17 Law Rep. 316; 8"It is for Congress to say how much of the judicial power of the United States shall be exercised by the subordinate Courts it may establish from time to time." Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U. S. 511, 18 Sup. Ct. 685, 42 L. 1126. Cases too numerous for citation imply the same that has been stated. Many others expressly so declare the law, a few of which are cited: Karrahoo v. Adams, 14 Fed. Cas. 134, 1 Dill. 344; Livingston v. Van Ingen, 15 Fed. Cas. 697, 1 Paine 45, 4 Hall Law J. 56; Moffat v. Soley, 17 Fed. Cas. 559, 2 Paine 103; Smith v. Jackson, 22 Fed. Cas. 575, 1 Paine 453; Tunstall v. Worthington, 24 Fed. Cas. 324, Hempst. 662; United States v. Davidson, 25 Fed. Cas. 771, 1 Biss. 433, 2 Chi. Holmes v. Goldsmith, 147 U. S. Leg. News 385; 150, 13 Sup. Ct. 288, 37 L. 118; Bath County v. Amy, 13 Wall. 244, 20 L. 539; Montana Ore-Purchasing Co. v. Boston & M. C. C. & S. Min. Co., 57 U. S. App. 13, 29 C. C. A. 462, 85 Fed. 867; United States v. Joe, 26 Fed. Cas. 612, 4 Chi. Leg. News 105, 15 Int. Rev. Rec. 57. The doctrine of this section has been seriously questioned in some cases: Brainard v. Williams, 4 Fed. Handford v. United States, 35 C. Cas. 7, 4 McLean 122; C. A. 75, 92 Fed. 881; In re Cilley, 58 Fed. 977; United States v. Southern Pac. R. Co., 49 Fed. 297; Dundas v. Bowler, 8 Fed. Cas. 28, 3 McLean 204. But the view of the law here stated "has been sustained from Vannerson v. Leverett, 31 Fed. the organization of the Supreme Brainard v. Williams, supra. 9"A Circuit Court, however, is of limited jurisdiction; and has cognizance, not of cases generally, but only of a few specially circumstanced, amounting to a small pro Norton v. Brewster, 23 Fed. 840; United States Bank v. Northumberland Bank, 2 Fed. Cas. 726, 4 Wash. C. C. 108, 4 Conn. 333; United States Bank v. Roberts, 2 Fed. Cas. 728, 4 Conn. 323; Ex parte Cabrera, 4 Fed. Cas. 964, portion of the cases, which an 1 Wash. C. C. 232; unlimited jurisdiction would embrace. And the fair presumption is (not as with regard to a court of general jurisdiction, that a cause is within its jurisdiction unless the Harrison v. Hadley, 11 Fed. Cas. 649, 2 Dill. 229, 5 Chi. Leg. News 206, 17 Int. Rev. Rec. 26, 44, 7 Am. L. Rev. 560; Hubbard v. Northern R. Co., 12 contrary appears, but rather) that are not inferior courts, in the language of the common law.10 § 24. The Courts of the United States have the implied powers incident to courts of superior jurisdiction.—“ Certain implied powers must necessarily result to our Courts of justice from the nature of their institution. . . . To fine for contempt, imprison for contumacy, inforce the observance of order, etc., are powers which cannot be dispensed with in a court, because they are necessary to the exercise of all others; and so far our Courts no doubt possess powers not immediately derived from statute." 1 § 25. The jurisdiction of the United States Circuit Courts is limited by the laws of the United States and not by those of the States.-When it is said that the jurisdiction of the United States Courts is limited and statutory, it is meant that their jurisdiction is such only as is conferred by $ 24. 1 United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32, 3 L. 259. So say the later cases: a cause is without its jurisdiction | of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 1 L. till the contrary appears. This 718. renders it necessary, inasmuch as the proceedings of no court can be deemed valid further than its jurisdiction appears, or can be presumed, to set forth upon the record of a Circuit Court, the facts or circumstances, which give jurisdiction, either expressly, or in such manner as to render them certain by legal intendment." Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 1 L. 718. In re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 595-6, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 39 L. 1092; In re Terry, 128 U. S. 289, 9 Sup. Ct. 77, 32 L. 405; Ex parte Robinson, 19 Wall. 505, 510, 22 L. 205, 207; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204, 227, 5 L. 242, 248; Ripon Knitting Works v. Schrei Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 91, 1 Woodb. & M. 401, 10 Law Rep. 127. The same rule applies to State courts of superior jurisdiction. 10" A Circuit Court, though an inferior Court, in the language of Con-ber, 101 Fed. 810, 814; stitution, is not so in the language United States v. New Bedford of the common law; nor are its proceedings subject to the scrutiny of those narrow rules, which the caution, or jealousy, of the courts at Westminster, long applied to courts of that denomination; but are entitled to as liberal intendments, or presumptions, in favour of their regularity, as those of any supreme court." Turner v. Bank Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County District Court, 134 U. S. 31, 10 Sup. Ct. 424, 33 L. 801 (affirming same case, 69 Iowa 240, 28 N. W. 551), and cases cited therein, and in the Terry case, supra. the United States Constitution and statutes, and not State constitutions or statutes. State legislation cannot enlarge the jurisdiction of the United States Courts,1 or curtail the jurisdiction given them by Congress,2 or control the practice therein. State statutes as to the jurisdiction of the State courts are not controlling upon the Federal Courts in the exercise of original jurisdiction. The Federal Courts have the jurisdiction granted to them by Congress, although the State courts do not have a similar jurisdiction.* § 26. The Courts of the United States, under the Constitution, cannot have cognizance of suits and actions unknown to, and forbidden by, the law. The judicial power of the United States extends only to subjects properly within judicial cognizance. "The cognizance of suits and actions unknown to the law, and forbidden by the law, was § 25. "The action was within the general jurisdiction conferred by Congress upon the Circuit Courts 1 Keary v. Farmers' & Merchants' Bank, 16 Pet. 89, 10 L. 897; The Orleans v. Phœbus, 11 Pet. of the United States. The fact 175, 9 L. 677; that the legislature of the State of Lamson v. Mix, 14 Fed. Cas. New York has not seen fit to au1055, 6 Hunt Mer. Mag. 72; thorize like suits to be brought in Lanmon v. Clark, 14 Fed. Cas. its own courts by citizens and resi1119, 4 McLean 18. dents of other States cannot de 2 Suydam v. Broadnax, 14 Pet. 67, prive such citizens of their right 10 L. 357; Chicot County v. Sherwood, 148 U. S. 529, 13 Sup. Ct. 695, 37 L. 546; to invoke the jurisdiction of the National Courts under the Constitution and laws of the United States." Barrow Steamship Co. Hoover v. Crawford County, 39 v. Kane, 170 U. S. 100, 18 Sup. Ct. Cunningham v. Ralls County, 1 which holds that the only causes Fed. 453, 1 McCr. 117; of action cognizable in a Federal Phelps v. O'Brien County, 19 Court under the general statute, Fed. Cas. 462, 2 Dill. 518; are such as may be sued upon in the United States v. Drennen, 25 Fed. courts of the State in which such Cas. 908, Hempst. 320. Federal Court is held, under the 3 Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. statutes thereof. 1, 6 L. 253. not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States.” 1 § 27. The Courts of the United States have only judicial powers. As elsewhere stated,' the Constitution furnishes the limit of the powers conferrable upon the Courts of the United States. Subject to a trifling exception, none but judicial powers can be conferred, even by Congress, upon the Courts of the United States.1 § 26. 1 Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 504, 33 L. 842 (affirming s. c., 24 Fed. 55). For example, it is held in the case cited that an action cannot be brought by an individual against a State although such action involve a Federal question; the Supreme Court approving Hamilton, the Federalist, No. 81; Madison, 3 Elliot's Debates, 533; Marshall, 3 Elliot's Debates, 555; the dissenting opinion of Justice Iredell in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. 440; and overruling the decision of the majority of the Court in that case. A suit against a State officer in name, but against the State in fact, falls within the prohibition of a suit against a State. Manchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Herriott, 91 Fed. 711; Ball v. Rutland R. Co., 93 Fed. 513. $ 27. 1 Ante § 23. 2 Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, ante § 2; Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, quoted in next note. 8 "The Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they may think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the heads of departments." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. 4" Congress (excluding the special cases provided for in the Constitution, as, for instance, in section two of Article two of that instrument) may not impose upon the Courts of the United States Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, any duties not strictly judicial.” 1 Pet. 110, 7 L. 73; Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. Co., 109 U. S. 446, 3 Sup. Ct. 292, 27 L. 992; Interstate Commerce Commission v. This has frequently been ad Ex parte Ayers, 123 U. S. 443, 8 judged. Sup. Ct. 164, 31 L. 216; North Carolina v. Temple, 134 U. S. 22, 10 Sup. Ct. 509, 33 L. 849; Fitts v. McGhee, 172 U. S. 516, 19 Sup. Ct. 269, 43 L. 535; Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 20 Sup. Ct. 919, 44 L. 1140, affirming Smith v. Rackliffe, 59 U. S. App. 427, 31 C. C. A. 328, 87 Fed. 964; Hayburn's Case, note, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. 436; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. 42; United States v. Todd, 13 How. 52, 14 L. 47; Ex parte Gans, 17 Fed. 471, 5 McCr. 393; In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 12 Sawy. 559; |