tional right.-Id.; U. S. vs. Cornell, 2 Mass., p. 91; U. S. vs. Davis, 5 Mass., p. 356. The words of the Constitution declaring that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England.-United States vs. McGill, 4 Dall., p. 426. The question whether the legality of the acts of the heads of departments be examinable by Courts of justice, must always depend on the nature of the act.-Marbury vs. Madison, 1 Cranch, p. 137. In an action of ejectment between two citizens of the State where the lands lie, if the defendant set up an outstanding title in a British subject, which he contends is protected by treaty, and the highest State Court decides against the title thus set up, it is not a case in which a writ of error lies to the Supreme Court of the United States. This is not a case arising under the treaty, and the words of the Judiciary Act must be restrained by those of the Constitution.-Owing vs. Norwood's Lessee, 5 Cranch, p. 344. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution, but they are limited and regulated by the Acts of Congress.-Durousseau vs. The United States, 6 Cranch, p. 307. In what cases the Supreme Court of the United States has appellate jurisdiction from the decision of the highest Court of a State.-Cohens vs. Virginia, 6 Wheat., p. 264. A case of law or equity arises under the Constitution, or a law of the United States, whenever its correct decision depends upon the construction of either.-Id., p. 379. The judicial power of every well constituted government must be coextensive with the legislative, and capable of deciding every judicial question growing out of the Constitution and laws.-Id. Where the words of the Constitution confer only appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court, original jurisdiction is clearly not granted; but where the words admit of appellate jurisdiction, the power to take cognizance of the suit originally does not necessarily negative the power to decide upon it on an appeal, if it may originate in a different Court.-Id., p. 397; also, Osborn et al. vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., p. 738. In every case to which the judicial power extends, and in which original jurisdiction is not expressly given, that power shall be exercised in the appellate, and only in the appellate, form.-Id. When the subject is presented to the Court by a party who asserts his right in the form prescribed by law, it then becomes a case.-Osborn et al. vs. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat., p. 738. A corporation created by, and transacting business in, a State, is to be deemed an inhabitant of the State, capable of being treated as a citizen for all purposes of suing and being sued.Louisville, Cincinnati, and Charleston Railroad Co. vs. Letson, 2 Howard, p. 497. The Act of Congress of February 26th, 1845, extending the jurisdiction of the District Courts to certain cases on the Lakes and navigable waters connecting the same, is consistent with the Constitution of the United States.-Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh et al., 12 Howard, p. 443. The Courts of the United States, under the Constitution, have equity jurisdiction.-Neves et al. vs. Scott, 13 Howard, p. 268. The Federal Courts have no jurisdiction of common law offenses, and there is no abstract, pervading principle of the common law of the Union under which they can take jurisdiction.-Pennsylvania Where vs. Wheeling Bridge, 13 Howard, p. 519. relief can be given by the English chancery, similar relief may be given by the Courts of the Union.-Id. ADMIRALTY AND MARITIME JURISDICTION.-The grant in the Constitution of the United States of all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction does not extend to a cession of the waters in which those cases may arise, or of the general jurisdiction over them. The general jurisdiction adheres to the territory, as a portion of sovereignty not yet given away, and the residuary powers of legislation still remain in the State.-United States vs. Bevans, 3 Wheat., p. 336. The expression "admiralty and maritime jurisdiction " gives jurisdiction of all things done upon and relating to the sea.-De Lovio vs. Bosh et al., 2 Gallis, p. 468. The grant in the Constitution extending the judicial power "to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," is neither to be limited to, nor to be interpreted by, what were cases of admiralty jurisdiction in England when the Constitution was adopted.-Waring vs. Clark, 5 Howard, p. 441. Admiralty jurisdiction in the Courts of the United States is not taken away because the Courts of common law may have concurrent jurisdiction. Nor is a trial by jury any test of admiralty jurisdiction. The subject matter of a contract or service gives jurisdiction in admiralty; locality gives it in tort or collision.-Id. In cases of tort or collision happening upon the high seas, or within the ebb and flow of the tide, as far up a river as the tide ebbs and flows, though it may be infra corpus comitatus, Courts of admiralty of the United States have jurisdiction.-Id. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction granted to the Government by the Constitution is not limited to tide waters, but extends to all public navigable lakes and rivers, where commerce is carried on between different States or with a foreign nation.— Propeller Genessee Chief vs. Fitzhugh, 12 Howard, p. 443. The eleventh amendment to the Constitution does not, it seems, extend to suits of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.-U. S. vs. Bright, Bright's Trial, p. 190; s. c., Bright, p. 9. Jurisdiction over all admiralty cases is given to District Courts by the Constitution and laws of the United States, but a case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.-Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., p. 512; Roberts vs. Skolfield, 8 Am. L. R., p. 156; The Young America, Newb., p. 101. Admiralty jurisdiction conferred upon Federal Courts is exclusive of those of the States.-The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall., p. 411; The Hine vs. Trevor, id., p. 556; and see The Globe, 2 Bl. C. C., p. 427; Tupper vs. The Isabella, 2 West., L. Mo., p. 253; The John Richards, Newb., p. 73; Ashbrook vs. The Golden Gate, id., p. 296. An action on a marine contract or a marine tort may be tried by proceeding "in personam" in the State Courts.-The Hine vs. Trevor, 4 Wall., p. 556. Misdemeanors on the high seas are constitutionally triable in the Federal Courts.-U. S. vs. Crawford, 1 N. Y. Leg. Obs., p. 388. Suits by and against the U. S. Bank are constitutionally triable in the Circuit Courts.-Osborn vs. Bank of the U. S., 9 Wh., p. 738. 3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be put at such place or places as the Congress may, by law, have directed. NOTE. This provision is annotated under Article VI, "Mode of Trial."-See amendment, post, ratified Dec. 15th, 1791. JURY.-The right of trial by jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away.-2 Dall., p. 309. The Legislature of Iowa passed a law directing a Court to decide matters of fact without the intervention of a jury. This was inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States. Webster vs. Reid, 11 How., p. 437. By Article VII, 44-VOL. II.-POL. Treason. of amendments, post, this right of trial by jury is extended to suits at common law where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. SECTION 3. 1. Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 2. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open Court. 3. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted. NOTE.-Where there is no allegiance there can be no treason.-Shanks vs. Dupont, 3 Pet., p. 251. Therefore an alien not naturalized cannot commit treason against the United States.-U. S. vs. Vallito, 2 D., p. 370; same case, Whart. St. Tr., p. 185. To obtain an object of high public nature or concern by insurrection, force, or violence, is levying war against the United States.-U. S. vs. Fries, Whart. St. Tr., p. 458. But assemblages arrayed in warlike manner for private purposes is not treason.-Id. Unless accompanied with overt acts, a conspiracy to levy war is not treason, but any force connected with such intent is levying war.— Id., and Ex Parte Bollman, 4 Cr., p. 75; U. S. vs. Burr, 2 Burr's Trial, p. 407. There must be an actual levying war to constitute treason.-Id. Armed men mustered in military array in a body for treasonable purposes, and marching or doing any other act in part execution of the purpose, is an overt act of treason in levying war.-U. S. vs. Griener, 24 Law Rep., p. 92; same case, 4 Phila., p. 396. Adhering to insurgents in a domestic insurrection is not treason, in adhering to enemies of the U. S., under the Act of 1790.-U. S. vs. Chenewith, 4 West L. Mo., p. 165. But it may be levying war.-Id. Going from an enemy's squadron to the shore for peaceably procuring provision for the enemy is not an overt act of treason. It is an overt act of treason to carry provisions to the enemy.-U. S. vs. Pryor, 3 W. C. C., p. 234. So is delivering up prisoners and deserters to the enemy. Well grounded fear of life will alone excuse this act.-U. S. vs. Hodges, 2 Wh. Cr. Cas., p. 477. Intention is involved in the act.-Id. Preventing, or an insurrection to pre- 2. Power of United States over territorial and other property. SECTION 4. United States to guarantee to each State a republican form of government and protect against invasion. SECTION 1. acts and 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each State Evidence of records, and judicial proceedings of And the Congress may, by general to the public acts, every other State. records of official States. |