Opinion of the Court. same shall have been refused on account of or by reason of interference with a previously existing patent. By the act of March 3, 1849, c. 108, 9 Stat. 395, the Patent Office was transferred to the Department of the Interior. The act of March 2, 1861, c. 88, 12 Stat. 246, created the office of examiners in chief, "for the purpose of securing greater uniformity of action in the grant and refusal of letters patent," "to be composed of persons of competent legal knowledge and scientific ability, whose duty it shall be, on the written petition of the applicant for that purpose being filed, to revise and determine upon the validity of decisions. made by examiners when adverse to the grant of letters patent; and also to revise and determine in like manner upon the validity of the decisions of examiners in interference cases, and when required by the Commissioner in applications for the extension of patents, and to perform such other duties as may be assigned to them by the Commissioner; that from their decisions appeals may be taken to the Commissioner of Patents in person, upon payment of the fee hereinafter prescribed; that the said examiners in chief shall be governed in their action by the rules to be prescribed by the Commissioner of Patents." The act of July 8, 1870, c. 230, 16 Stat. 198, revised, consolidated and amended the statutes then in force on the subject, and by section 48, an appeal to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia sitting in banc was provided for, whose decision was to govern the further proceedings in the case (sec. 50); and the provisions of the act material to the present inquiry were carried in substance into the existing revision. By the act of February 9, 1893, c. 74, 27 Stat. 434, the determination of appeals from the Commissioner of Patents, which was formerly vested in the General Term of the Supreme Court of the District, was vested in the Court of Appeals, and, in addition, it was provided that "any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in any interference case may appeal therefrom to said Court of Appeals." As one of the instrumentalities designated by Congress in Opinion of the Court. execution of the power granted, the office of Commissioner of Patents was created, and though he is an executive officer, generally speaking, matters in the disposal of which he exercises functions judicial in their nature may properly be brought within the cognizance of the courts. Now, in deciding whether a patent shall issue or not, the Commissioner acts on evidence, finds the facts, applies the law and decides questions affecting not only public but private interests; and so as to reissue, or extension or on interference between contesting claimants; and in all this he exercises judicial functions. In Butterworth v. Iloe, supra, Mr. Justice Matthews, referring to the constitutional provision, well said: "The legislation based on this provision regards the right of property in the inventor as the medium of the public advantage derived from his invention; so that in every grant of the limited monopoly two interests are involved, that of the public, who are the grantors, and that of the patentee. There are thus two parties to every application for a patent, and more, when, as in case of interfering claims or patents, other private interests compete for preference. The questions of fact arising in this field find their answers in every department of physical science, in every branch of mechanical art; the questions of law, necessary to be applied in the settlement of this class of public and private rights, have founded a special branch of technical jurisprudence. The investigation of every claim presented involves the adjudication of disputed questions of fact, upon scientific or legal principles, and is, therefore, essentially judicial in its character, and requires the intelligent judgment of a trained body of skilled officials, expert in the various branches of science and art, learned in the history of invention, and proceeding by fixed rules to systematic conclusions." That case is directly in point and the ratio decidendi strictly applicable to that before us. The case was a suit in mandamus brought by the claimant of a patent in whose favor the Commissioner had found in an interference case, to compel the Commissioner to issue the patent to him. The Commissioner Opinion of the Court. had refused to do this on the ground that the defeated party had appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, who had reversed the Commissioner's action, and found in appellant's favor. This court held that while the Commissioner of Patents was an executive officer and subject in administrative or executive matters to the supervision of the head of the department, yet that his action in deciding patent cases was essentially judicial in its nature and not subject to review by the executive head, an appeal to the courts having been provided for. And among other things it was further said: "It is evident that the appeal thus given to the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia from the decision of the Commissioner, is not the exercise of ordinary jurisdiction at law or in equity on the part of that court, but is one in the statutory proceeding under the patent laws whereby that tribunal is interposed in aid of the Patent Office, though not subject to it. Its adjudication, though not binding upon any who choose by litigation in courts of general jurisdiction to question the validity of any patent thus awarded, is, nevertheless, conclusive upon the Patent Office itself, for, as the statute declares, Rev. Stat. § 4914, it 'shall govern the further proceedings in the case.' The Commissioner cannot question it. He is bound to record and obey it. His failure or refusal to execute it by appropriate action would undoubtedly be corrected and supplied by suitable judicial process. The decree of the court is the final adjudication upon the question of right; everything after that dependent upon it is merely in execution of it; it is no longer matter of discretion, but has become imperative and enforceable. It binds the whole Department, the Secretary as well as the Commissioner, for it has settled the question of title, so that a demand for the signatures necessary to authenticate the formal instrument and evidence of grant may be enforced. It binds the Secretary by acting directly upon the Commissioner, for it makes the action of the latter final by requiring it to conform to the decree. Congress has thus provided four tribunals for hearing applications for patents, with three successive appeals, in which the Secretary of the Interior is not included, giving jurisdiction Opinion of the Court. in appeals from the Commissioner to a judicial body, independent of the Department, as though he were the highest authority on the subject within it. And to say that under the name of direction and superintendence, the Secretary may annul the decision of the Supreme Court of the District, sitting on appeal from the Commissioner, by directing the latter to disregard it, is to construe a statute so as to make one part repeal another, when it is evident both were intended to coexist without conflict." * * * * * "No reason can be assigned for allowing an appeal from the Commissioner to the Secretary in cases in which he is by law required to exercise his judgment on disputed questions of law and fact, and in which no appeal is allowed to the courts that would not equally extend it to those in which such appeals are provided, for all are equally embraced in the general authority of direction and superintendence. That includes all or does not extend to any. The true conclusion, therefore, is, that in matters of this description, in which the action of the Commissioner is quasi-judicial, the fact that no appeal is expressly given to the Secretary is conclusive that none is to be implied." We perceive no ground for overruling that case or dissenting from the reasoning of the opinion; and as the proceeding in the Court of Appeals on an appeal in an interference controversy presents all the features of a civil case, a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge, and deals with a question judicial in its nature, in respect of which the judgment of the court is final so far as the particular action of the Patent Office is concerned, such judgment is none the less a judgment "because its effect may be to aid an administrative or executive body in the performance of duties legally imposed upon it by Congress in execution of a power granted by the Constitution.” Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447. It will have been seen that in the gradual development of the policy of Congress in dealing with the subject of patents, the recognition of the judicial character of the questions involved became more and more pronounced. Syllabus. By the acts of 1839 and 1852 an appeal was given, not to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, but to the chief judge or one of the assistant judges thereof, who was thus called on to act as a special judicial tribunal. The competency of Congress to make use of such an instrumentality or to create such a tribunal in the attainment of the ends of the Patent Office seems never to have been questioned, and we think could not have been successfully. The nature of the thing to be done being judicial, Congress had power to provide for judicial interference through a special tribunal, United States v. Coe, 155 U. S. 76; and a fortiori existing courts of competent jurisdiction might be availed of. We agree that it is of vital importance that the line of demarcation between the three great departments of government should be observed, and that each should be limited to the exercise of its appropriate powers, but in the matter of this appeal we find no such encroachment of one department on the domain of another as to justify us in holding the act in question unconstitutional. Judgment affirmed. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY v. MYERS. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. No. 214. Argued October 21, 1898. Decided January 23, 1899. This bill was filed to enjoin the enforcement of a tax, imposed under the laws of Montana, upon lands granted by Congress by the act of July 2, 1864, c. 217, to the Northern Pacific Railroad Company, and acquired by the appellant on the reorganization of the company. There was a controversy as to the character of the lands taxed-whether mineral or non-mineral. The lands have never been patented or certified to the company; the company claimed that it had only a potential interest therein; and the relief sought was that the lands be adjudged not subject to such assessment and taxation until the issue of patents therefor by the United States. It was stipulated in the court below that the sole |