Young v. Wempe, 46 Fed. 354: § 111, | Youngstown Coke Co. v. Andrews Yulee v. Vose, 99 U. S. 539, 25 L. Yung Sing Hee, In re, 36 Fed. 437, 7; THE REMOVAL OF CAUSES. CHAPTER I. THE CONSTITUTION AND GENERAL STATUTE. § 1. The judicial power of the United States is vested in its Courts. The judicial system of the United States has its origin in the Constitution of the United States. It is enacted by the Constitution: 1 "The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.2 The Judges, both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." The first Congress passed the original judiciary act, approved September 24, 1789, which established the District Courts and the Circuit Courts of the United States, which are still a part of its judicial system. An act of March 3, 1891, established the nine Circuit Courts of Appeals which we now have.5 The existing statutes as to the removal of suits before trial, § 1. U. S. Const., Art. III, § 1. "To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court." U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 9. 81 St. at L. 73, entitled "An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States." 4 26 St. L. 826, 1 Supp. 901. Their jurisdiction is discussed post § 210 and notes. from State courts to Courts of the United States, provide for their removal to the Circuit Courts, and not, in any case, to a District Court, or to a Circuit Court of Appeals. § 2. The Constitution defines the extent of the judicial power. The Constitution1 carefully defines the extent of the judicial power which may be conferred upon the Courts of the United States: 2 "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this 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; 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 State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." § 3. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction of certain classes of cases." In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction.2 In all the other cases before § 2. 1 Art. III, § 2, cl. 1. 2 This clause of the Constitution, as to the jurisdiction of the Inferior Courts of the United States, and the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, is not self-executing. Post § 23. § 3. 'Art. III, § 2, cl. 2. 2 The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is not necessarily exclusive. This was adjudged in United States v. Ravara, 27 Fed. Cas. 713, 2 Dall. 297, 1 L. 388, Whart. St. Tr. 90 (1793), by Justice Wilson and Judge Peters, Justice Iredell dissenting, which was an indict ment of a consul. The defendant was convicted, upon a trial by jury before Chief Justice Jay and Judge Peters. United States v. Ravara, 27 Fed. Cas. 714, 2 Dall. 299` note, 1 L. 389 (1794). There are dicta in several cases in the Supreme Court strongly implying such jurisdiction to be exclusive. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 2 L. 60 (1803); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 5 L. 257 (1821); Osborn v. United States Bank, 9 mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." 3 § 4. When a law case has been finally tried in a State court it cannot be Constitutionally removed to a Federal Court for re-trial therein.-The Constitution, as amended,1 protects the judgments of the State courts, in a large measure, from Federal interference: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; "And no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined diction is exclusive or concurrent was certified to the Supreme Court upon a division of opinion in United States v. Ortega, 27 Fed. Cas. 359, 4 Wash. C. C. 531 (1825). The Supreme Court did not decide this question, the case being decided upon another ground. United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467, 6 L. 521 (1826). Texas v. Lewis, 12 Fed. 1 (1882); s. c., 14 Fed. 65 (1882). The Supreme Court so expressly decided in Börs v. Preston, 111 U. S. 252, 4 Sup. Ct. 407, 28 L. 419 (1884); and in Ames v. Kansas, 111 U. S. 449, 4 Sup. Ct. 437, 28 L. 482 (1884). It is now settled that Congress may, as it has done, confer concurrent jurisdiction of cases justiciable therein, upon other Courts of the In an elaborate note to that case, the opinion is expressed that the jurisdiction is concurrent. The Supreme Court impliedly so United States, or permit the exerdecided in cise by the State courts of their Davis v. Packard, 7 Pet. 276, 8 L. jurisdiction, notwithstanding the 684 (1833). Constitutional grant to the Supreme Court of original jurisdiction thereof. The question of the jurisdiction of State courts received It was expressly decided in other Circuit Court cases that such jurisdiction is concurrent. Gittings v. Crawford, 10 Fed. Cas. very careful consideration in 447, Taney 1 (1838); Plaquemines Tropical Fruit Co. v. Henderson, 170 U. S. 511, 18 Sup. Ct. 685, 42 L. 1126, St. Luke's Hospital v. Barclay, 21 Fed. Cas. 212, 3 Blatchf. 259 (1855); Graham v. Stucken, 10 Fed. Cas. of text writers are fully reviewed. 945, 4 Blatchf. 50 (1857); and the earlier cases and opinions Georgia v. Atkins, 10 Fed. Cas. 241, 1 Abb. U. S. 22, 35 Ga. 315, 8 Int. Rev. Rec. 113, 1 Am. Law T. Reps. U. S. Cts. 105 (1866); 8 The appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as affecting the removal of causes, is treated post § 210. § 4. 1 Amendment VII. in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."2 § 5. A State is not suable by an individual in any Federal Court." The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state." 1 § 6. The present general jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States by original process is prescribed by the act of 1875, § 1, as amended by the act of 1887-8, § 1.1-The judiciary act of 1789, § 11,2 for a very long time controlled the general jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts by original process. Other sections of that act, and other acts passed from time to time, conferred upon the Cir 2 The first clause of this Amend- | at common law or in equity, where ment applies exclusively to trials the matter in dispute exceeds, exin the Federal Courts; but the last clause limits the power of the Federal Courts over the verdicts and judgments of the State courts as well. clusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the Post § 33 and authorities cited State where the suit is brought, note 3. A finding by a State court trying a case in lieu of a jury is protected by this Amendment as fully as the verdict of a jury. St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Holbrook, 1 U. S. Const., Amendment XI. and a citizen of another State. And shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct, and concurrent jurisdiction with the District Courts of the crimes and offences cognizable therein. But no person shall be arrested in one District for trial in another, in any civil action before a Circuit or District Court. And 125 St. L. 433, 1 Supp. Rev. St. no civil suit shall be brought be(2 Ed.) 611. 2" Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That the Circuit Courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature fore either of said Courts against an inhabitant of the United States, by any original process in any other District than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the |