V. Halstead. allowed in the Supreme Courts of the respective 1825. States; and it ratifies and continues such practice, U. S. Bank and extends it to all the proceedings in suits. This course was no doubt adopted, as one better calculated to meet the views and wishes of the several States, than for Congress to have framed an entire system for the Courts of the United States, varying from that of the State Courts. They had in view, however, State systems then in actual operation, well known and understood, and the propriety and expediency of adopting which, they would well judge of and determine. Hence the restriction in the act, now used and allowed in the Supreme Courts of the several States. There is no part of the act, however, that looks like adopting prospectively, by positive legislative provision, the various changes that might thereafter be made in the State Courts. Had such been the intention of Congress, the phraseology of the act would doubtless have been adapted to that purpose. It was, was, nevertheless, foreseen, that changes probably would be made in the processes and proceedings in the State Courts, which might be fit and proper to be adopted in the Courts of the United States; and, not choosing to sanction such changes absolutely in anticipation, power is given to the Courts over the subject, with a view, no doubt, so to alter and mould their processes and proceedings, as to conform to those of the State Courts as nearly as might be, consistently with the ends of justice. This authority must have been given to the Courts, for some substantial and beneficfal 1825. purpose. V. Halstead. If the alterations are limited to mere U. S. Bank form, without varying the effect and operation of the process, it would be useless. The power here given, in order to answer the object in view, cannot be restricted to form as contradistinguished from substance, but must be understood as vesting in the Courts authority, so to frame, mould, and shape the process, as to adapt it to the purpose intended. The general policy of all the laws on this subject is very apparent. It was intended to adopt, and conform to, the State process and proceedings, as the general rule, but under such guards and checks as might be necessary to insure the due exercise of the powers of the Courts of the United States. They have authority, therefore, from time to time to alter the process, in such manner as they shall deem expedient, and likewise to make additions thereto, which necessarily implies a power to enlarge the effect and operation of the process. The exercise of this power is, to be sure, left in the discretion of the Court; but the object and purpose for which it is given, is so plainly marked, that it is hardly to be presumed the Courts would omit carrying it into execution, without some substantial reason. And, the better to insure this, authority is given to this Court, to prescribe to the Circuit and District Courts, such regulations on the subject as it shall think proper. And should this trust not be duly and discreetly exercised by the Courts, it is at all times in the power of Congress to correct the evil by more specific legislation. But so long as U. S. Bank V. Halstead. the Courts of the United States shall make such 1825. alterations or additions in their process of execution as only to reach property made subject to execution from the State Courts, there would seem to be no just ground for complaint. When, therefore, the law of Kentucky made land subject to executions, it was carrying into effect the spirit and object of the act of Congress, for the Circuit Court so to alter and add to the form of its execution, as to authorize the taking and selling the debtor's land. It is said, however, that this is the exercise of legislative power, which could not be delegated by Congress to the Courts of justice. But this objection cannot be sustained. There is no doubt that Congress might have legislated more specifically on the subject, and declared what property should be subject to executions from the Courts of the United States. But it does not follow, that because Congrees might have done this, they necessarily must do it, and cannot commit the power to the Courts of justice. Congress might regulate the whole practice of the Courts, if it was deemed expedient so to do: but this power is vested in the Courts; and it never has occurred to any one that it was a delegation of legislative power. The power given to the Courts over their process is no more than authorizing them to regulate and direct the conduct of the Marshal, in the execution of the proIt relates, therefore, to the ministerial duty of the officer; and partakes no more of legislative power, than that discretionary authority in cess. U. S. Bank V. Halstead. 1825. trusted to every department of the government in a variety of cases. And, as is forcibly observed by the Court, in the case of Wayman v. Southard, the same objection arises to delegating this power to the state authorities, as there does to intrusting it to the Courts of the United States. It is as much a delegation of legislative power in the one case as in the other. It has been already decided, in the case referred to, that the 34th section of the Judiciary Act has no application to the practice of the Courts of the United States, so as in any manner to govern the form of the process of execution. And all the reasoning of the Court, which denies the application of this section to the form, applies with equal force to the effect or extent and operation of the process. If, therefore, Congress has legislated at all upon the effect of executions, they have either adopted and limited it to that which would have been given to the like process from the Supreme Courts of the respective States, in the year 1789, or have provided for changes, by authorizing the Courts of the United States to make such alterations and additions in the process itself, as to give it a different effect. To limit the operation of an execution now, to that which it would have had in the year 1789, would open a door to many and great inconveniencies, which Congress seems to have foreseen, and to have guarded against, by giving ample powers to the Courts, so to mould their process, as to meet whatever changes might take place. And if any doubt existed, whether the act of 1792 vests such power in the Courts, or with respect to its con U. S. Bank V. Halstead. stitutionality, the practical construction here- 1825. tofore given to it, ought to have great weight in determining both questions. It is understood, that it has been the general, if not the universal practice of the Courts of the United States, so to alter their executions, as to authorize a levy upon whatever property is made subject to the like process from the State Courts; and under such alterations, many sales of land have no doubt been made, which might be disturbed if a contrary construction should be adopted. That such alteration, both in the form and effect of executions, has been made by the Circuit Court for the District of Kentucky, is certain from the case now before us, as, in 1789, land in Kentucky could not be sold on execution. If the Court, then, had the power so to frame and mould the execution in this case, as to extend to lands, the only remaining inquiry is, whether the proceedings on the execution could be arrested and controlled by the State law. And this question would seem to be put at rest by the decision in the case of Wayman v. Southard. The law of Kentucky, as has been already observed, does not in terms profess to exercise any such authority; and if it did, it must be unavailing. An officer of the United States cannot, in the discharge of his duty, be governed and controlled by State laws, any farther than such laws have been adopted and sanctioned by the legislative authority of the United States. And he does not, in such case, act under the authority of the State law, but under that of the United States, |