[361] Section 13 provided, among other things, that "the Supreme Court ... shall have power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts ... and writs of mandamus, in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States." (U.S. Statutes at Large, i, 73; Annals, 1st Cong. 2d Sess. 2245.)
[362] See supra, 53-54.
[363] See Dougherty: Power of the Federal Judiciary over Legislation, 82.
Professor Corwin says that not many years later Marshall concurred in an opinion of the Supreme Court which, by analogy, recognized the validity of it. (Corwin, 8-9.)
[364] U.S. vs. Ravara, 2 Dallas, 297.
[365] U.S. vs. Lawrence, 3 Dallas, 42.
[366] U.S. vs. Peters, ib. 121.
[367] In the argument of Marbury vs. Madison, Charles Lee called Marshall's attention to the case of U.S. vs. Hopkins, in the February term, 1794, in which a motion was made for a mandamus to Hopkins as loan officer for the District of Virginia, and to the case of one John Chandler of Connecticut, also in February, 1794, in which a motion was made in behalf of Chandler for a mandamus to the Secretary of War. These cases do not seem to have been reported, and Lee must have referred to manuscript records of them. (See 1 Cranch, 148-49.)
Samuel W. Dana of Connecticut also referred to the Chandler case during the Judiciary debate in the House, March, 1802. (See Annals, 7th Cong. 1st Sess. 903-04.)
[368] 1 Cranch, 308.