148
ities, their office was made inalienable; and it was determined that their salary, when once fixed, should not be altered by the legislature.[1] It was easy to proclaim the principle of a federal judiciary, but difficulties multiplied when the extent of its jurisdiction was to be determined.
MEANS OF DETERMINING THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURTS.
Difficulty of determining the Jurisdictions of separate courts of Justice in Confederation.—The Courts of the Union obtained the Right of fixing their own Jurisdiction.—In what Respect this Rule attacks the Portion of Sovereignty reserved to the several States.—The Sovereignty of these States restricted by the Laws, and the Interpretation of the Laws.—Consequently, the Danger of the several States is more apparent than real.
As the constitution of the United States recognised two distinct powers, in presence of each other, represented in a judicial point of view by two distinct classes of courts of justice, the utmost care which could be taken in defining their separate jurisdictions would have been insufficient to prevent frequent collisions between those tribunals. The question then arose, to whom the right of deciding the competency of each court was to be referred.
In nations which constitute a single body politic, when a question is debated between two courts relating to their mutual jurisdiction, a third tribunal is generally within reach to decide the dif-
- ↑
The union was divided into districts, in each of which a resident federal judge
was appointed, and the court in which he presided was termed a “district court.”
Each of the judges of the supreme court annually visits a certain portion of the
Republic, in order to try the most important causes upon the spot; the court presided
over by this magistrate is styled a “circuit court.” Lastly, all the most serious cases
of litigation are brought before the supreme court, which holds a solemn session once
a year, at which all the judges of the circuit courts must attend. The jury was introduced
into the federal courts in the same manner, and in the same cases as into the
courts of the states.
It will be observed that no analogy exists between the supreme court of the United States and the French cour de cassation, since the latter only hears appeals. The supreme court decides upon the evidence of the fact, as well as upon the law of the case, whereas the cour de cassation does not pronounce a decision of its own, but refers the cause to the arbitration of another tribunal. See the law of the 24th September, 1789, laws of the United States, by Story, vol. i., p. 53.
