CHAPTER XI.
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.