indispensable party (except suits brought against it by the United States or by another State), without the consent of such State to be sued."1 A State cannot be sued in the United States courts by one of its own citizens, regardless of what the nature of the controversy may be.62 A suit against a State officer to compel him to do what a statute requires of him is not a suit against the State, within the meaning of the eleventh amendment." 64 63 In order for the United States courts to take jurisdiction under the clause respecting controversies between citizens of different States, all the defendants must be citizens of different States from any of the plaintiffs, and diversity of citizenship must appear in the pleadings.65 The jurisdiction of the Federal courts, however, will not be lost on account of the citizenship of formal or nominal parties; the citizenship of the real parties in interest determines the jurisdiction." Federal jurisdiction cannot be abridged by any State law." Under the Judiciary Act of the United States, a non-resident sued in any State Court has the absolute right to have his case, if involving over $2,000, removed to the United States Circuit Court, and any agreement with the State not to thus remove the case is void.69 A State can, however, make a non-resident corporation 61 Hagood vs. Southern, 117 U. S., 71. 62 Hans vs. Louisiana, 134 U. S., 9. 63 Ralston vs. Missouri Fund Com missioners, 120 U. S., 411; Pennoyer vs. McConnaughty, 140 U. S., 9; Smith vs. Reeves, 178 U. S., 439. Strawbridge vs. Curtiss, 3 Cranch, 267; New Orleans vs. Winter, 1 Wheaton, 95; Coal Co. vs. Blatchford, 11 Wallace, 174; Case of Sewing Machine Companies, 18 Wallace, 575; Smith vs. Lyon, 133 U. S., 316. 65 Turner vs. Bank of North Amer ica, 4 Dallas, 8; Godfrey vs. Terry, 97 U. S., 171. 86 Wood vs. Davis, 18 Howard, 467; Brown vs. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303; Irvine vs. Lowery, 14 Peters, 300; Coal Co. vs. Blatchford, 11 Wallace, 177; Knapp vs. Railroad Co., 20 Wallace, 124; Walden vs. Skinner, 101 U. S., 589; Pacific R. R. vs. Ketchum, 101 U. S., 298; Blacklock vs. Small, 137 U. S., 104. 67 Hyde vs. Stone, 20 Howard, 170. 68 Home Insurance Co. vs. Morse, 20 Wallace, 445. abstaining from thus removing cases a condition of its continuing to do business in the State, as the right to do business in any State is a privilege granted State and not an absolute right." by the This clause giving jurisdiction to the United States courts in cases between citizens of different states, does not apply to citizens of the territories,70 nor of the District of Columbia." For example, a citizen of one of the territories could not sue a citizen of one of the states in the United States court. A corporation is not recognized by the United States as a citizen of the United States, or of any particular State. It cannot sue or be sued in the United States courts under this clause of the Constitution, except in consequence of the citizenship of its stockholders." A corporation aggregate, composed of citizens of one State may sue a citizen of another State in the United States courts." By a legal fiction the stockholders of any corporation are conclusively presumed for purpose of litigation in Federal courts, to be citizens of the State, which created the corporation; this need not be averred, and cannot be rebutted." Under the clause concerning controversies between citizens of the same State, claiming land under grants from different States, the Federal courts have jurisdiction where one of the grants was made prior to the 69 Id. 70 Barney vs. Baltimore, 6 Wallace, 287; Corp. of New Orleans vs. Winter, 1 Wheaton, 91; Koenigsbergen vs. Richmond S. M. Co., 158 U. S., 41. "Hepburn vs. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445; Gassies vs. Ballon, 6 Hope Insurance Company vs. Boardman, 5 Cranch, 57; United States Bank vs. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61; Commercial, etc., Bank vs. Slocomb, 14 Peters, 64; Rundle vs. Delaware, etc., Canal Co., 14 Howard, 95. 73 United States Bank vs. Deveaux, 5 Cranch, 61. 74 Steamship Co. vs. Tugman, 106 U. S., 118; Marshall vs. B. & O. R. R. Co., 16 Howard, 314, 329; Louisville, etc., R. R. vs. Letson, 2 Howard, 555. separation of the States.75 Very few cases have ever been brought before the United States courts under this provision. This clause covering suits between a State or its citizens and foreign States, citizens or subjects, completes the general jurisdiction given to the Federal courts in cases of diverse citizenship. The Courts of the United States have jurisdiction where both parties to the suit are aliens." The fact that an alien is a resident in some State of the United States will not prevent the United States from taking jurisdiction in suits between this alien and a citizen of the State in which he resides." United States courts also have jurisdiction over suits between citizens of the same State, when the plaintiffs are nominal plaintiffs for the use of an alien.78 In suits brought under this clause, a citizen of the United States, must be described as a citizen of some particular State." A foreign sovereign may sue in the United States courts on a public claim.80 The third clause of the second section of the third article of the Constitution provides that: "The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crime shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." The guarantee contained in this section extends 77 Breedlove vs. Nicolet, 7 Peters, 75 Town of Pawlet vs. Clark, 9 Cranch, 292; Colson vs. Lewis, 70 Mason VS. Ship Blaireau, 2 413. 78 Brown vs. Strode, 5 Cranch, 303. 79 Hodgson et al. vs. Bowerbank, 5 Cranch, 303. 80 The Ship Sapphire, 11 Wallace, 164; Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364; United States vs. Addison, 22 Howard, 174. to cases arising in time of war, but not to those arising in the land or naval forces of the United States.81 The word "Trial" here means a trial by jury.82 The United States courts have no Common Law criminal jurisdiction.83 84 85 The Supreme Court of the United States in Callum vs. Wilson, cites the following opinion, as showing to the trial of what crimes this constitutional guarantee extends: "In England, notwithstanding the provisions in the Magna Charta of King John, Act 46, and in that of King Henry III, Chap. 29, which declared that no freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, or condemned but by lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land, it has been the constant cause of legislation in that kingdom, for centuries past, to confer summary jurisdiction upon Justices of the Peace for the trial and conviction of parties for minor and statutory police offenses; and when it is declared that the party is entitled to a speedy trial by an impartial jury, that must be understood as referring to such crimes and accusations as have, by the regular course of the law and the established modes of procedure, as heretofore practiced, been the subjects of jury trial. It could never have been intended to embrace every species of accusation involving either criminal or penal consequences."' 86 SECTION 58. JURISDICTION OF THE SUPREME COURT. The original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is fixed by the Constitution as follows: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public 81 Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wallace, 2. United States vs. Hudson, 7 84 127 U. S., 540. 85 From State vs. Glenn, 54 Maryland, 573. 88 See also Eilenbacker vs. District Court of Plymouth County, 134 U. S., 31. ministers, and consuls, and in those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before 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." 87 This is the maximum jurisdiction which can be given to the Supreme Court. The first act of Congress ever declared unconstitutional was one which attempted to give to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction not provided for in the Constitution.88 The words of the Constitution giving original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in certain cases is construed negatively as to all other cases.89 Giving original jurisdiction to the Supreme court does not of itself exclude original jurisdiction in other courts, as Congress may also vest original jurisdiction in such cases in the inferior Federal courts, or may allow the State courts to take jurisdiction.90 Congress may, however, exclude altogether the jurisdiction of any State Court in any suit against a foreign minister or ambassador, and this has been done in Rev. Stat. U. S. 687. In order for the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction on account of a State being a party to a suit, the State must be a direct party and not merely consequently affected.o1 92 The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a suit brought by the United States against a State.92 In all other cases where the United States courts 87 United States Constitution, Article III, Section 2, Clause 2. 88 Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137. 80 Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, Ex parte Vallandingham, 1 Wallace, 243. 00 United States vs. Pavara, 2 Dallas, 297. 1 Fowler vs. Lindsey, 3 Dallas, 411; New Hampshire vs. Louisiana and New York vs. Louisiana, 108 U. S., 76. 92 United States vs. Texas, 143 II. S., 621. |