Page images

claim on behalf of the state, to the thing, but against the person, a person slaves remaining unsold, and to the capable of appearing as defendant, proceeds of those which are sold. He against whom a decree can be prostates the slaves to be in possession of nounced, must be a party to the cause the executive, under the act of the before a decree can be regularly prolegislature of Georgia, made to give nounced. effect to the act of congress on the But were it to be admitted, that the subject of negroes, mulattoes, or people governor could be considered as a de. of colour, brought illegally into the fendant in his personal character, no United States; and the proceeds of case is made which justifies a decree those unsold to have been paid in the against him personally. He has acted treasury, and to be no longer under his in obedience to a law of the state, made control.

for the purpose of giving effect to an The case made, in both the libel act of congress, and has done nothing and claim, exhibits a demand for mo- in violation of any law of the United ney ctually in the treasury of the States. state, mixed up with its general funds, The decree is not to be considered and for slaves in possession of the go- as made in a case in which the government. It is not alleged, nor is it vernor was a defendant, in his personal the fact, that this money has been character; nor could a decree against brought into the treasury, or these him, in that character, be supported. Africans into the possession of the The decree cannot be sustained as executive, by any violation of an act of against the state, because, if the llth congress. The possession has been amendment to the constitution, does acquired, by means which it was law- not extend to proceedings in admiralty, ful to employ:

it was a case for the original jurisdicThe claim upon the governor, is as tion of the supreme court.

It cannot a governor: he is sued, not by his be sustained as a suit, prosecuted not name, but by bis title. The demand against the state, but against the thing; made upon him is not made personally, because the thing was not in possesbut officially.

sion of the district court. The decree is pronounced, not We are therefore of opinion, that against the person, but the offi. there is error in so much of the decree cer, and appeared to have been pro- of the circuit court, as directs that the nounced against the successor of said slaves libelled by Juan Madrazo, the original defendant, as the appeal and the issue of the females now in the bond was executed by a different go- custody of the government of the state vernor from him who filed the informa- of Georgia, or the agent or agents of tion. In such a case, where the chief the said state, be restored to the said magistrate of a state is sued, not by his Madrazo, as the legal proprietor therename, but by his style of office, and of, and that the proceeds of those the claim made upon him is entirely slaves, who were sold by order of the in his official character, we think the governor, or the said state, be paid to state itself may be considered as a the said Juan Madrazo, and that the party on the record.

If the state same ought to be reversed; but that is not a party, there is no party against there is no error in so much of the said whom a decree can be made. No per- decree as dismisses the information of son in his natural capacity is brought the governor of Georgia, and the claim before the court as defendant. This of William Bowen. not being a proceeding against the

Christian Breithaupt f. al. vs. the Bank of the State of Georgia.

[ocr errors]

In this case, which was brought up mother bank, and the President of on appeal from the Circuit Court for the Branch Bank, were citizens of the district of Georgia, the only ques. Georgia. tion was, whether the Circuit Court Mr. M.Duffie argued in support of had jurisdiction of the cause. The the jurisdiction of the Court, and Mr. complainants were citizens of the state Berrien and Mr. Wilde against it. of South Carolina, and the defendant The Court decided, that it had not was a body corporate, under an act of jurisdiction, the record not showing the Legislature of Georgia, but the the defendants to be citizens of citizenship of the individual corpora - Georgia, and there being no distinct tors was not stated, although the bill allegations that the stockholders were averred that the President of the citizens of that state.

James D'Wolf vs. David J. Rabaud f. al.

In this case, the Court decided, also declared, that the question of the (Justice Story delivering the opinion,) citizenship of the parties constituted that the Court could not in any case no part of the issue upon the merits, order a nonsuit, without the consent but must be brought forward by a and acquiescence of the plaintiff. It proper plea of abatement.

The American Insurance Company f al. vs. David Canter.

This case was an appeal in Admi- The District Court declared the ralty from the Circuit Court of the proceedings in the Court at Key West United States for the District of South null ; and, after deducting a salvage Carolina.

of 50 per cent., decreed restitution of A libel was filed in the District such cotton as was identified by the Court, claiming certain bales of cot- libellants. ton, insured by the appellants, and The Circuit Court reversed this wrecked on the coast of Florida, decree, and decreed the cotton, with whence it was carried into Key West, costs, to the appellee, on the ground and sold, without having been pro- that the proceedings at Key West were perly adjudicated upon.

legal, and transferred the property to The appellee filed his answer, the purchaser. claiming as a bona fide purchaser Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, under a decree of a certain Court, it was contended by Mr. Ogden, for consisting of a Notary and five jurors, the appellants, that the decision of the created by an act of the Legislative Circuit Court was erroneous, because Council of Florida, passed July 4th, the Court at Key West was not legally 1823, which awarded 76 per cent. organized, and had not jurisdiction in salvage to the salvors of the cargo. the premises.

Mr. Webster and Mr. Whipple re- fers their country, transfers the aileplied in behalf of the appellees. giance of those who remain in it; and

Chief Justice Marshali delivered the the law, which may be denominated opinion of the Court. After stating political, is necessarily changed, althe facts, he proceeds:

though that which regulates the interThe cause depends, mainly, on the course and general conduct of indiviquestion whether the property in the duals, remains in force until altered cargo saved, was changed by ihe sale by the newly created power of the at Key West. The conformity of that state. sale to the order under wbich it was On the 2d of February, 1819, Spain made, has not been controverted. Its ceded Florida to the United States. vahdity has been denied, on the The 6th article of the treaty of cession ground that it was ordered by an in- contains the following provisioncompetent tribunal.

". The inhabitants of the territories The tribunal was constituted by an which his Catholic Majesty cedes to act of the territorial Legislature of the United States by this treaty, shall Florida, passed on the 4th July, 1823, be incorporated in the Union of the which is inserted in the record That United States, as soon as may be, conact purports to give the power which sistent with the principles of the has been exercised, consequently the federal constitution, and admitted to sale is valid, if the territorial Legisla- the enjoyment of the privileges, rights, ture was competent to enact the law. and immunities of the citizens of the

The course which the argument has United States." taken, will require, that, in deciding This treaty is the law of the land, this question, the Court should take and admits the inhabitants of Florida into view the relation in which Florida to the enjoyment of the privileges, stands to the United States.

rights, and immunities, of the citizens The constitution confers absolutely of the United States It is unneces. on the government of the Union, the sary to inquire, whether this is not powers of making war, and of making their condition, independent of stiputreaties ; consequently, that govern- lation. They do not, however, partiment possesses the power of acquiring cipate in political power, they do not territory, either by conquest or by share in the government, till Florida treaty.

shall become a state. In the mean The usage of the world is, if a nation time, Florida continues to be a terribe not en irely subdued, to consider tory of the United States, governed by the holding of conquered territory as virtue of that clause of the coustitution a mere military occupation, until its which empowers Congress “to make fate shall be determined at the treaty all needful rules and regulations reof peace. If it be ceded by the 'reaty, specting the territory, or other property the acquisition is confirmed, and the belonging to the United States." ceded territory becomes a part of the Perhaps the power of governing a nation to which it is annexed, either territory belonging to the United on the terms stipulated in the treaty of States, which has not, by becoming a cession, or on such as its new master state, acquired the means of selfshall impose. On such transfer of government, may result, necessarily, territory, it has never been held, that from the facts, that it is not within the relations of the inhabitants with the jurisdiction of any particular state, each other undergo any change. Their and is within the power and jurisdicrelations with their former sovereign tion of the United States. The righ are dissolved, and relations to govern may be the inevitable con are created between them and the sequence of the right to acquire tergovernment which has acquired their ritory. Whichever may be the source territory. The same act which trans. whence the power is derived, the pos


session of it is unquestioned. In exe- of the United States." As salvage is cution of it, Congress, in 1822, passed admitted to come within this descrip. An act for the establishment of a tion, the act is valid, unless it can be territo government in Florida ;" brought within the restriction. and, on the 3d of March, 1829, passed The counsel for the libellants conanother act to amend the act of 1822. tend, that it is inconsistent with both Under this act, the territorial legisla- the law and the constitution; that it is ture enacted the law now under con- inconsistent with the provisions of the sideration.

law, by which the territorial govern • The 5th section of the act of 1823 ment was created, and with the creates a territorial legislature, which emendatory act of March, 1823. It shall have legislative powers over all vests, they say, in an inferior tribunal, rightful objects of legislation; but no a jurisdiction which is, by those acts, law shall be valid, which is inconsist. vested exclusively in the Superior ent with the laws and constitution of Courts of the territory. the United States.

This argument requires an attentive The 7th section evacts, “ That the consideration of the sections which judicial power shall be vested in two define the jurisdiction of the Superior Superior Courts, and in such inferior Courts. courts, and justices of the peace, as The 7th section of the act of 1829, the Legislative Council of the territory vests the whole judicial power of the may from time to time establish.” territory "in iwo Superior Courts, After prescribing the place of cession, and in such inferior courts, and jusand the jurisdictional limits of each tices of the peace, as the Legislative court, the act proceeds to say, "within Council of the territory may from time its limits herein described, each court to time establish." This general grant shall have jurisdiction in all criminal is common to the superior and inferior cases, and exclusive jurisdiction in all courts, and their jurisdiction is concapital offences, and original jurisdic. current, except so far as it may be tion in all civil cases of the value of made exclusive in either, by other proone hundred dollars, arising under visions of the statute. The jurisdicand cognizable by the laws of the ter. tion of the Superior Courts is declared ritory, now in force therein, or which to be exclusive over capital offences ; Day, at any time, be enacted by the on every other question over which Legislative Council thereof."

those courts may take cognizance by The 8th section enacts, " That each virtue of this section, concurrent jurisof the said Superior Courts shall more- diction may be given to the inferior over have and exercise the same juris- ' courts. Among these subjects, are diction within its limits, in all cases “ all civil cases arising under and cogarising under the laws and constitution nizable by the laws of the territory, of the United States, which, by an act now in force therein, or which may at lo establish the judicial courts of the any tiine be enacted by the Legislative United States, approved the 24th of Council thereof." September, 1789, and an act in addi. It has been already stated, that all tion to the act, entitled an act to the laws which were in force in Floestablish the judicial courts of the rida while a province of Spain, those Unised States, approved the 2d of excepted which were political in their March, 1793, was vested in the court character, which concerned the relaof Kentucky District."

tions between the people and their The powers of the territorial legis sovereign, remained in force until lature extend to all rightful objects of altered by the government of the legislation, subject to the restriction, United States. Congress recognises that their laws shall not be “incon- this principle, by using the words sistent with the laws and constitution “laws of the territory now in force


therein." No laws could then have district courts of the United States been in force, but those enacted by vested in the superior courts of Flo. the Spanish government. If among rida, under the words of the 8th secthese, a law existed on the subject of tion, declaring that each of the said salvage, and it is scarcely possi- courts “shall woreover have and exble there should not have been ercise the same jurisdiction within its such a law, jurisdiction over cases limits, in all cases arising under the arising under it, was conferred on the laws and constitution of the United superior courts, but that jurisdiction States," which was vested in the courts was not exclusive. A territorial act, of the Kentucky district ? conserning jurisdiction over the same It is observable, that this clause cases on an inferior court, would not does not confer on the territorial have been inconsistent with this sec- courts all the jurisdiction which is lion.

vested in the court of the Kentucky The 8th section extends the juris. district, but that part of it only which diction of the superior courts, in terms applies to “cases arising under the which admit of more doubt. The laws and constitution of the United words are,

" That each of the said States.” Is a case of admiralty of superior courts shall, moreover, have this description ? and exercise the same jurisdiction,

The constitution and laws of the within its limits, in all cases arising United States, give jurisdiction to the under the laws and constitution of the district courts over all cases in admiUnited States, which, by an act to es- rally ; but jurisdiction over the case, tablish the judicial courts of the Uni- does not constitute the case itself. ted States, was vested in the court of We are therefore to inquire, whether the Kentucky district."

cases in admiralty, and cases arising The 11th section of the act declares, under the laws and constitution of the “That the laws of the United States United States, are identical. relating to the revenue and its collec- If we have recourse to that pure tion, and all or her public acts of the fountain froin which all the jurisdicUnited States, not inconsistent or re- tjon of the federal courts is derived, pugnant to this act, shall extend to, we fiud language employed which canand have full force and effect, in the not well be misunderstood. The conterritory aforesaid.”

stitution declares, that "the judicial The laws which are extended to the power shall extend to all cases in law territory by this section, were either and equity, arising under this constifor the punishment of crime, or for tution, the laws of the United States, civil purposes. Jurisdiction is given and treaties made, or which shall be in all criminal cases, by the 7th sec- made, under their authority; to all tion; but in civil cases, that section cascs affecting ambassadors, or other gives jurisdiction only in those which public ministers, and consuls ; to all arise under and are cognizable by the cases of admiralty and maritime juJaws of the territory ; consequently, risdiction." all civil cases arising under the laws The constitution certainly contemwhich are extended to the territory by plates these as three distinci classes of the 11th section, are cognizable in the cases; and if they are distinct, the territorial courts, by virtue of the 8th grant of jurisdiction over one of them; section; and, in those cases, the su. does not conser jurisdiction over either perior courts may exercise the same of the other two. The discriinination jurisdiction, as is exercised by the made between them, in the constitucourt for the Kentucky district. tiun, is, we think, conclusive against

The question suggested by this view their identity. If it were not so if of the subject, on which the case under this were a point open to inquiry, it consideration must depend, is this : would be difficuli to maintain the pro

Is the admirally jurisdiction of the position that they are the same. A

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »