out precedent, either in the national history of the United States or in that of any foreign country. The decision in Marbury v. Madison had been foreshadowed, however, in the legal the person charged with the duty of permitting such performance, or offer to perform be held as a performance in law of such act, and such person shall be entitled to vote in the same manner as if he had performed such act, and any officer of an election, who refused to count his vote, shall forfeit and pay, etc. Section 4 provided for the punishment of bribery, intimidation, etc., at elections. Nothing appeared in the section about a hindrance on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude," and their validity was challenged on demurrer. The Trade-mark Cases, United States v. Steffens, 100 U. S. 82 (1879). Section 4937 of the act of 1870, entitled "An act to revise, consolidate and amend the statutes relating to patents and copyrights," and providing for registration in the patent office of a trade-mark under certain rules and regulations prescribed in the act; and a subsequent act passed in 1876, entitled, "An act to punish the counterfeiting of trademarks and the sale and dealing in of counterfeit trade-mark goods.'' United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629 (1882). Section 5519 of the Revised Statutes, which provided: "If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise upon the highway or on the premises of another for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constitutional authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws, shall be punished, etc. The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S 3 (1882). The Civil Rights Act." Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886). Section 5 of "An act to amend the custom revenue laws," etc. Passed June 22, 1874, which compelled a party accused of attempts to evade the payment of duties upon the demand of the prosecution to produce any documents in his possession which would tend to prove such attempted fraud. Baldwin v. Franks, 120 U. S. 678 (1887). Applying and extending the rule in United States v. Harris; Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States, 148 U. S. 312 (1893). An act providing for the condemnation of certain property for public use and promoting, "that in estimating the sum to be paid by the United States, the franchise of said corporation to collect tolls shall not be considered or estimated." Pollock V. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 158 U. S. 601 (1895). The income tax provisions of the "Wilson Act" of 1894. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U. S. history of the individual States. In several of these States the acts of the State Legislature had been declared unconstitutional by the State courts prior to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The most famous instances are the cases of Rutgers v. Waddington," in New York, and Trevett v. Weedon,18 in Rhode Island.19 § 194. Extent of the judicial powers of the United States.— The judicial power of the United States is part of the grant of powers from the States to the National Government. Like all other departments of the United States Government, the power of the judiciary is derived entirely from the Constitution. All judicial powers not granted by the Constitution to the Federal courts are reserved to the State courts.20 The grant of judicial power to the United States Government 228 (1896). Certain provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act. Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283 (1901). That portion of the Internal Revenue Act of 1898 which required a stamp to be placed on the bills of lading of goods exported. James v. Bowman, 190 U. S. 127 (1903). Section 5507 of Revised Statutes relative to bribery at elections. 1 Page v. United States, 11 Wallace, 268, 309; United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629. "Rutgers v. Waddington. Mayor's Court, City of New York, Aug. 27, 1784. Published in pamphlet form, New York, by Samuel Langdon, 1784. sons, who are, or were, inhabitants of this State, and who, by reason of the invasion of the enemy, left his, her, or their houses or places of abode, his, her, or their heirs, executors, or administrators, to bring an action of trespass against any person or persons who may have occupied, injured, or destroyed his, her, or their estate, either real or personal, within the power of the enemy." 18 Decided in Superior Court of Judicature of Rhode Island in 1786. This case involved the constitutionality of an act which made it a criminal offense to refuse to receive paper money, not only in payment of debts, but also in payment of any property offerèd for sale. The action is grounded on a statute of this State, entitled, "An act for granting a more effectual relief in cases of certain trespasses,'' passed the 17th day of March, 1783; and the declaration charges, first, the substance of the act, viz.: "That it shall and may be lawful for any person or per- 7 Cranch, 32. 19 See also Dend Bayard an Wife v. Singleton, Court of Conference of North Carolina, 1787, 1 Martin, N. C. 42. 20 United States v. Hudson et al., is contained in the second section of the third article of the Constitution, which is as follows: "The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the 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 States claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, citizens or subjects." The power herein granted is the maximum which may be exercised by the United States; it is not necessary that the United States assume this jurisdiction in full. By the Revised Statutes of the United States1 it is provided that the jurisdiction vested in the courts of the United States, in the following cases and proceedings, shall be exclusive of the courts of the several States: First. Of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States. Second. Of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States. Third. Of all civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it. Fourth. Of all seizures under the laws of the United States, on land or on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. Fifth. Of all cases arising under the patent right or copyright laws of the United States. Sixth. Of all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy. Seventh. Of all controversies of a civil nature, where a State is a party, except between a State and its citizens, or between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens. The jurisdiction of the United States courts is not directly 21 Sec. 711. derived from the Constitution, but depends on Congressional action in pursuance of the authority granted to Congress by the United States Constitution.22 Congress cannot, however, grant to the United States courts any judicial power not included within the grants of the Constitution; nor can the legislative or executive branches of the Government constitutionally assign to the judiciary any duties except such as are properly judicial in their nature.2 On the other hand Congress cannot confer any part of the judicial power upon an executive officer,24 nor vest any portion of the judicial power of the United States, except in courts ordained and established by itself;25 it cannot give jurisdiction to any State court or office as such.20 23 The power of the United States courts to punish for contempt of their authority, is both incidental to their general power to exercise judicial functions and is expressly recognized and provided for by the laws of Congress.27 § 195. Cases and controversies.-The exercise of the judicial powers of the United States is limited by the terms of the grants of such powers in the Constitution to "cases," "controversies" and petitions for the writ of habeas corpus.28 "The term 'controversies,' if distinguishable at all from 'cases,' is so in that it is less comprehensive than the latter, and includes only suits of a civil nature. Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 431, 432; 8 Tuck. Bl. Comm. App. 420, 421. By cases and controversies are intended the claim of litigants brought before the courts for determination by such regular proceedings as are established by law or custom for the protection or enforcement of rights, or the prevention, redress or punishment of wrongs. Whenever the claim of a party under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States takes such a form that the judicial power is capable of acting upon it, then it has become a case. The term implies the existence of present or possible adverse parties whose contentions are submitted to the court for adjudication."20 Proceedings before an investigation committee created by Congress are neither a "case" nor a "controversy."30 $196. "In law and equity."—"In every instance in which this court has expounded the phrases 'proceedings at the common law' and 'proceedings in equity,' with reference to the exercise of the judicial powers of the courts of the United States, they will be found to have interpreted the former as signifying the application of the definitions and principles and rules of the common law to rights and obligations essentially legal; and the latter as meaning the administration with reference to equitable as contra-distinguished from legal rights, of the equity law as defined and enforced by the Court of Chancery in England."31 The courts of the United States have uniform equity jurisdiction in all the States.32 §197. Cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States.-Cases arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States are not merely those where a party comes into court to demand something conferred upon him by the Constitution, or by a law or treaty, but also include all cases, either civil or criminal, where the correct decision of the court as to the rights or defenses of either party depends upon the construction of either.33 The Federal courts. have jurisdiction where it appears from the questions raised that some title, right, privilege or immunity on which the recovery depends will be defeated by one construction of the Constitution or laws of the United States and sustained by the opposite con 20 Id. See also La Abra Silver Mining Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 457. As to the distinction between a case and a controversy see Simon v. Fair, 195 U. S. 167. 30 Id. 31 Feno v. Holme, 21 Howard, 484. $2 Neves v. Scott, 13 Howard, 272; United States v. Howland, 4 Wheaton, 115; Noonan v. Braley, 2 Black, 509. 33 Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. |