The Federal Judiciary.
In forming the Constitution the framers of our government were
controlled by the principle that the powers which belong to all
governments can be most safely and satisfactorily exercised by dividing
them according to their nature among three separate branches, the
executive, the legislative, and the judicial. Under the Articles of
Confederation this maxim of government had been disregarded. The old
Continental Congress had been given under that plan, not only
legislative powers, but also those executive and judicial powers which
the States had yielded to the central government.
The lack of a Federal judiciary was, as Justice Story says, "one of the
vital defects of the old confederation." Hamilton, the expounder of the
Constitution, said: "Laws are a dead letter without courts to enforce
and apply them."
The reasons why a national system of courts was necessary were in order
that there might be some power:--
1. To give to laws an interpretation that would be uniform throughout
the land. If there were thirteen independent courts, each giving Federal
decisions on the same causes arising under the same national laws, what
but confusion and contradiction could arise?
2. To settle disputes between the States and citizens of different
States.
3. To construe and interpret the Constitution itself, and decide all
disputes arising under it act of either Congress or of a State
legislature contrary to the Constitution can therefore be valid. Hence,
the necessity of some power which should have authority to determine the
constitutionality of an act when brought into question, and--
5. There should be the power of determining the constitutionality of any
act of a State legislature, and thus enforce upon State legislatures the
restrictions laid upon them, such as, for example, the inability to lay
impost duties, to pass laws violating the obligation of contracts, etc.,
or to regulate objects given exclusively to Congress. The manifest
necessity of such a power may be best stated by using Hamilton's own
words (Federalist, 30):
"What would avail restrictions on the authority of the State
legislatures without some constitutional mode of enforcing the
observance of them? The States, by the plan of the Constitution, are
prohibited from doing a variety of things, some of which are
incompatible with the interests of the Union; others with the principles
of good government. The imposition of duties on imported articles, and
the emission of paper money are specimens of this kind. No man of sense
will believe that such prohibition would be scrupulously regarded,
without some effectual power in the government to restrain or correct
infractions of them. This power must be either a direct negative on the
State laws, or an authority in the Federal courts to annul such as might
be in manifest contravention of the articles of Union." * * * "These
courts are to be the bulwarks of a limited constitution against
legislative encroachments."
These reasons were so strong that there was little or no objection in
the constitutional convention to the creation of a national judiciary,
but difficulty arose in determining its precise nature and powers. As we
have learned, the difficulty to be overcome in drafting our new scheme
of government was to satisfy State jealousies and interests, and
preserve State rights of government, and yet to obtain a strong central
government; and to harmonize State rights with Federal strength.
In forming the national judiciary, the objects to be obtained, difficult
of achievement, were, to use the words of Judge Curtis (Federal Courts
of United States): "To construct a judicial power within the Federal
Government, and to clothe it with attributes which would enable it to
secure the supremacy of the general constitution and all of its
provisions; to give to it exact authority that would maintain the
dividing line between the powers of the Nation and the States, and to
give to it no more: and to add to these a faculty of dispensing justice
to foreigners, to citizens of different States and among the sovereign
States themselves, with a more even hand and with a more assured
certainty of the great ends of justice than any State power could
furnish--these were objects not readily or easily to be obtained, and
yet they were obtained with wonderful success."
The establishment of the federal judiciary is given in a few words in
the Constitution: "The judicial powers of the United States shall be
vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as Congress may
from time to time ordain and establish."
In pursuance of this clause, Congress passed in 1789, what is known as
the "Judiciary Act," the first section of which reads: "The Supreme
Court of the United States shall consist of one chief justice and five
associate justices." This act also established the inferior federal
courts, the circuit and district courts, and also defined and fixed
their fields of jurisdiction, i.e., the class of cases which these
courts could have power to try.
The Supreme Court stands at the head of our national judiciary. Its
field of jurisdiction is the construction and exposition of the
Constitution of the United States. Hon. S.F. Miller, senior justice of
this court, speaking of the high character of the duties performed by
this court, said: "This court, whether we take the character of the
suitors that are brought before it, or the importance of the subjects
of litigation over which it has final jurisdiction, may be considered
the highest the world has ever seen. It has power to bring States before
it, States which some of our politicians have been in the habit of
considering sovereign, not only when they come voluntarily, but by
Federal process they are subjected, in certain cases, to the judgment of
the court. Whatever these States may have been at the time of the
formation of the Constitution, they now number their inhabitants by the
millions, and in wealth and civilization are equal to many of the
independent sovereignties of Europe."
There have been considerable changes in the structure and duties of the
Supreme Court since its formation. At present there are nine justices,
instead of six. There is now one annual term of the court held,
beginning on the 2d Monday of October and continuing until about May 1.
Of the nine justices six constitute a quorum.
The Supreme Court first met in February, 1790. Since its organization it
has had eight chief justices, in the following order.
John Jay, 1789-1795.
Oliver Ellsworth, 1795-1801.
John Marshall, 1801-1835.
R.B. Taney, 1836-1864.
S.P. Chase, 1864-1873.
M.R. Waite, 1873-1888.
M. Fuller, 1888.
In 1795 John Rutledge was appointed to succeed Jay, received his
commission, and held one term of the court, but was not confirmed by the
Senate.
During the early years of the existence of the Supreme Court few cases
arose requiring its jurisdiction. During the first term there was no
business to be transacted. In 1801 there were only ten cases on the
docket, and for some years the average annual number of cases was
twenty-four; but in later years the number rapidly increased. From 1850
the average number of cases decided was seventy-one, while from 1875 to
1880 the average was three hundred and ninety-one per annum, and now
there are more than a thousand cases awaiting a hearing, and the court
is so far behindhand in its work that it takes from three to four years
for a case to come up for trial after having been entered upon the
docket. At present there are about four hundred cases granted a hearing
yearly.
Almost immediately after the adoption of the Constitution began
struggles and disputes between the States and the Federal Government. In
this contest the Supreme Court steadily upheld the central power, and
did much by its decisions to enforce and establish the power of the
Constitution. Especially was the court powerful during the years 1801 to
1835, when Marshall was chief justice, to whose wisdom and prudence it
is difficult to ascribe too much influence in fixing the present
stability of our government.
The Supreme Court has been an invariable supporter of the Federal
Constitution. During the early years of our government it was our
firmest barrier against the efforts of the States to lessen the federal
power. It has always maintained the balance of power between the States
and the Union.
The annual term of the Supreme Court begins the second Monday of October
and lasts until about May. Daily sessions, with the exceptions of
Saturdays and Sundays, are held, beginning at 12 o'clock, in the Capitol
building at Washington. The present justices are Fuller, chief justice,
and Lamar, Bradley, Field, Harlan, Gray, Blatchford and Brewer,
associate justices. Every Saturday morning the justices meet in
consultation and decide cases argued during the week. The decisions are
announced on Monday mornings. The justices are appointed by the
President, hold office for life, and are removable only by impeachment.
The following are a few cases decided by the Supreme Court with which it
is important that we should be acquainted owing to the influence which
their decision has had upon our history:
1. In 1793 the case of _Chisolm_ vs. _Georgia_ came before this court.
Chisolm, a citizen of North Carolina, sued the State of Georgia for a
sum of money, and under the second section of Article III of the
Constitution, which says that the judicial power of the United States
shall extend to disputes between a State and citizens of another State,
the court gave judgment in his favor. This decision that a State
government could be sued against its will created so much
dissatisfaction that the Eleventh Amendment was adopted, which says,
"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." The effect of this amendment has been to
enable a State to repudiate its just debts.
2. In 1819 was decided the very important case of _McCulloch_ vs.
_Maryland_. The United States had established a national bank, which was
objectionable to many of the States. Maryland attempted to destroy the
bank by levying a very high tax upon a branch bank within the State. The
question as to her right to do this was brought before the Supreme
Court. To have allowed Maryland this right would have been to give to a
State Government the power to oppose and render useless an institution
created by the Federal Government. The court sustained the Federal
power, and it was declared unconstitutional for any State to pass laws
opposing the operation of any Federal statute.
3. In the case of _Dartmouth College_ vs. _New Hampshire_ was declared
the unconstitutionally of a state law which impaired the obligation of
contracts.
4. A very important case decided by Chief Justice Taney was that of
_Dred Scott_ vs. _Sandford_ in 1857. Dred Scott, a negro slave in
Missouri, had been carried into the Territory of Minnesota, where, by
the Missouri Compromise of 1820, slavery did not exist. Upon being
carried back into Missouri by his master, Scott claimed his freedom upon
the ground that he had been voluntarily carried into a Territory where
slavery was not allowed. The Supreme Court in its decision declared that
Congress had never had the power to pass any law which would forbid
slave-owners settling in Territories and still retaining control of
their slaves. The whole country was at this time in great excitement in
regard to the question whether or not, in the organization of the
Territories of Kansas and Nebraska into States, slavery should be
prohibited, and this decision, whereby the Missouri Compromise Act was
practically annulled, and which pointed directly forward to an
establishment of slavery in the new Territories, raised public
excitement to a fever heat. It was in this decision that the statement
was made that at the time of the formation of the Constitution the
general opinion had been that the colored man had no rights which the
white man was bound to respect. As a direct result of this case a more
determined stand was taken at the North against slavery; the
Anti-Slavery Republican party was strengthened, and their candidate for
President, Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1861, and the catastrophe of
civil war precipitated.
5. The Legal-Tender decisions, given in several cases soon after the
civil war, are important. During the progress of the war the Government,
in order to raise funds to meet its extraordinary expenses, had been
forced to issue slips of paper which represented no deposits of coin in
the Treasury, but only promises to pay certain sums by the Government.
These were declared legal tender, that is, made by law as good as gold
and silver, and the people were forced to receive them in payment of
debts and for commodities. It was questioned whether the Government had
by the Constitution power to do this. The legal-tender decisions
declared that it had. Judicial System and Jurisdiction of the United
States Courts.
_#District Courts.#_--The United States is divided into judicial
districts. Many single States form a judicial district, while others are
divided into two and others into three districts. The number of
districts has varied. At present there are about sixty. To each of these
districts is given a court and a district judge. These form the lowest
grade of Federal courts.
_#Circuit Courts.#_--These judicial districts are grouped into nine
circuits. For example, the Fourth circuit includes the districts of
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.
For each circuit is appointed one circuit judge. One of the justices of
the Supreme Court is also allotted to each of the circuits, who, after
the expiration of the Supreme Court term, visits his circuit, and tries
the more important cases which may arise in that circuit. The Circuit
Court may be held by the circuit judge, the Supreme Court justice, or
the district judge of that district in which the court is sitting, or by
any two of them, or all of them, sitting together. The Circuit Courts
form the next series of the Federal courts higher than the District
Courts.
_#Jurisdiction.#_--The relation between the Supreme, Circuit and
District courts is easy to explain. Their jurisdiction is upon federal
questions; that is, over those cases mentioned in the Constitution over
which judicial power has been granted to the United States, viz.,
questions arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties,
between citizens of different States, between citizens and foreigners,
between States themselves, etc., and all crimes punishable under the
United States laws.
The Circuit Court is higher than the District Court, and to it cases
involving $500 and over may be appealed from the District courts. The
Supreme Court is the court of last resort, and to it all appeals from
the Circuit Courts come, with the limitation that $5,000 be involved.
The cases decided by the Supreme Court are then of two classes: (1)
those over which it has original jurisdiction, (see Constitution); i.e.,
those cases which originate or begin in that court; and (2) those cases
over which it has appellate jurisdiction, i.e., those cases which come
thither by appeal from the lower Circuit Courts, and which form the
larger part of its work, and also by appeal from the highest State
courts in cases involving certain Federal questions. The District of
Columbia being directly governed by the United States, its courts are
Federal courts, and hence, cases may be appealed from such courts to the
Supreme Court; likewise for the same reason appeals may be had to the
Supreme Court from the territorial courts.
We must remember that these courts deal only with Federal questions
arising under United States laws, and, that besides these courts, all of
the States have their own judicial systems of courts to interpret state
laws and to try the great majority of cases. These courts are entirely
separate from the United States courts, and with different judges,
though cases may begin in them and be transferred to the United States
Courts, if the interpretation of a Federal law is brought into question.
There are four grades of law in the United States. First and highest is
the United States Constitution; second, United States laws, or statutes
as they are called, passed by Congress; third, State constitutions; and
fourth, State laws, passed by the State legislatures. In case of
conflict of laws the lower must yield to the higher.
For the purpose of settling claims of private persons against the United
States, there has been established at Washington a Court of Claims, held
by five judges. From it appeals lie, in some cases, to the Supreme
Court, and, in others, they are referred to Congress for action.