1st Circuit.-Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

2nd Circuit.-Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. 3rd Circuit.-New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Dela

ware.

4th Circuit.-Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina.

5th Circuit.-Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.

6th Circuit.-Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Ten

nessee.

7th Circuit.-Indiana, Illinois, and Wisconsin.

8th Circuit.—Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Arkansas, Colorado, Minnesotta, and Nebraska.

9th Circuit.—California, Nevada, and Oregon.

A circuit court is held in each "district" twice annually. There are at the present time fifty-one districtsa district being mostly coterminous with a State, but some States having two or more districts. In each district there is a district court and a district judge. The entire judicial force is thus distributed :-Nine judges of the Supreme Court, each of whom is allotted to one of the nine circuits; nine circuit judges; and fifty-one district judges.

The circuit judges are of recent institution (1869), the circuit courts having formerly been held by the judges of the Supreme Court, each sitting in the circuit assigned to him, with or without the assistance of the district judges in their respective districts.

The jurisdiction of the district courts is of no particular interest in relation to our present subject. The jurisdiction of the circuit court is now defined by Act of March 3, 1875, as follows:—

"The circuit courts of the United States shall have

original cognisance concurrent with the courts of the several States of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity when the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of 500 dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, or in which the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, or a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects."

Section 2 of the same Act provides

"That any suit of a civil nature at law or in equity now pending or hereafter brought in any State court, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of 500 dollars, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made or which shall be made under their authority, or in which the United States shall be plaintiff or petitioner, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different States, or a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign States, citizens, or subjects, either party may remove said suit into the circuit court of the United States for the proper district.

"Congress," says Mr. Cooley, "has, with few exceptions, left the parties at liberty to bring their suits in the State courts, irrespective of the questions involved, but has made provision for protecting the Federal authority by a transfer to the Federal courts, either before or after judgment, of the cases to which the

Federal judicial power extends." The transfer after judgment is thus effected:-"A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State, on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution and treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favour of their validity; or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is claimed under the Constitution or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or immunity specially set up or claimed by either party under such Constitution, treaty, statute, commission, or authority, may be reexamined and revised or affirmed in the Supreme Court on a Writ of Error."* In other words, wherever any right, title, &c., claimed under the authority of the Federal Government, is denied by a decision of the highest State court of appeal, such decision may be appealed to the Supreme Court at Washington.

On the other hand, the general rule that the Federal courts will follow the decisions of State courts on questions of State law is qualified by a jealous regard for the principles of the Federal Constitution. While in general a Federal court will abandon a previously

* Revised Statutes of the United States, 1875.

expressed opinion of its own which has been overruled by the State courts, it will not follow the State court in a change of opinion which would "impair the obligation of a contract." The settled judicial construction of a State statute is held to be, like the statute itself, part of the obligation of contracts made with reference to it. The Federal courts have been steadily extending their prerogative in this regard, and their present position is pretty clearly expressed in a recent decision.* The Federal circuit court for Missouri had given a decision in a case before it in favour of the defendant. The Supreme Court of the State, in a suit by another plaintiff on the same cause of action, decreed against the same defendant. The Supreme Court at Washington refused to follow that decision, holding that the Federal courts have an independent jurisdiction co-ordinate with that of the State courts, and are bound to exercise their own judgment as to the meaning and effect of State laws. When by a course of decisions in the State courts rules are established which become rules of property and action in the State, the Federal courts will always regard such rules as an authoritative declaration of what the law is. "But when the law has not been thus settled, it is their right and duty to exercise their own judgment, as they always do in reference to the doctrines of commercial law and general jurisprudence ; and when contracts and transactions have

* Burgess v. Lilymann, reported in 107 United States Supreme Court Reports, p. 20.

been entered into, and rights have accrued thereon under a particular state of the decisions of the State tribunal, or when there has been no decision, the courts of the United States assert the right to adopt their own interpretation of the law applicable to the case, although a different interpretation may be given by the State courts after such rights have accrued."

The influence of the Federal courts on the development of the Constitution has been greatly strengthened by the high character and capacity of its members. The Federal judiciary, in fact, is one of the best and purest of American institutions. Its members are nominated by the President with the consent of the Senate, and their term of office is for life or during good behaviour. Although the remuneration of the judges of all ranks is small if measured by English practice, the great dignity and high social consideration universally allowed to them renders the office attractive to the foremost men of the time. The Supreme Court is one of the best tribunals in the world, and some of its members are and have been the flower of the American intellect. In the circuit and district courts also are many men whose opinions on personal grounds alone would justly command universal respect. So constituted, the Federal judiciary has been admirably qualified for the delicate duties. which have been imposed upon it of holding the balance between the rival authorities of the nation and the State, and of protecting within the State the rights of the alien and the stranger. But while the