democracy in america-1-第39部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


uld　be　empowered　to　decide　conjointly　with　those　of　the　Union；　the　losing　party　having　then　a　right　of　appeal　to　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States。　　The　Supreme　Court　of　Virginia　contested　the　right　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　to　judge　an　appeal　from　its　decisions；　but　unsuccessfully。　　See　〃Kent's　Commentaries；〃　vol。　i。　p。　300；　pp。　370　et　seq。；　Story's　〃Commentaries；〃　p。　646；　and　〃The　Organic　Law　of　the　United　States；〃　vol。　i。　p。　35。＇

This　was　a　severe　blow　upon　the　independence　of　the　States；　which　was　thus　restricted　not　only　by　the　laws；　but　by　the　interpretation　of　them；　by　one　limit　which　was　known；　and　by　another　which　was　dubious；　by　a　rule　which　was　certain；　and　a　rule　which　was　arbitrary。　　It　is　true　the　Constitution　had　laid　down　the　precise　limits　of　the　Federal　supremacy；　but　whenever　this　supremacy　is　contested　by　one　of　the　States；　a　Federal　tribunal　decides　the　question。　　Nevertheless；　the　dangers　with　which　the　independence　of　the　States　was　threatened　by　this　mode　of　proceeding　are　less　serious　than　they　appeared　to　be。　　We　shall　see　hereafter　that　in　America　the　real　strength　of　the　country　is　vested　in　the　provincial　far　more　than　in　the　Federal　Government。　The　Federal　judges　are　conscious　of　the　relative　weakness　of　the　power　in　whose　name　they　act；　and　they　are　more　inclined　to　abandon　a　right　of　jurisdiction　in　cases　where　it　is　justly　their　own　than　to　assert　a　privilege　to　which　they　have　no　legal　claim。

Different　Cases　Of　Jurisdiction

The　matter　and　the　party　are　the　first　conditions　of　the　Federal　jurisdiction　…　Suits　in　which　ambassadors　are　engaged　…　Suits　of　the　Union　…　Of　a　separate　State　…　By　whom　tried　…　Causes　resulting　from　the　laws　of　the　Union　…　Why　judged　by　the　Federal　tribunals　…　Causes　relating　to　the　performance　of　contracts　tried　by　the　Federal　courts　…　Consequence　of　this　arrangement。

After　having　appointed　the　means　of　fixing　the　competency　of　the　Federal　courts；　the　legislators　of　the　Union　defined　the　cases　which　should　come　within　their　jurisdiction。　　It　was　established；　on　the　one　hand；　that　certain　parties　must　always　be　brought　before　the　Federal　courts；　without　any　regard　to　the　special　nature　of　the　cause；　and；　on　the　other；　that　certain　causes　must　always　be　brought　before　the　same　courts；　without　any　regard　to　the　quality　of　the　parties　in　the　suit。　　These　distinctions　were　therefore　admitted　to　be　the　basis　of　the　Federal　jurisdiction。

Ambassadors　are　the　representatives　of　nations　in　a　state　of　amity　with　the　Union；　and　whatever　concerns　these　personages　concerns　in　some　degree　the　whole　Union。　　When　an　ambassador　is　a　party　in　a　suit；　that　suit　affects　the　welfare　of　the　nation；　and　a　Federal　tribunal　is　naturally　called　upon　to　decide　it。

The　Union　itself　may　be　invoked　in　legal　proceedings；　and　in　this　case　it　would　be　alike　contrary　to　the　customs　of　all　nations　and　to　common　sense　to　appeal　to　a　tribunal　representing　any　other　sovereignty　than　its　own；　the　Federal　courts；　therefore；　take　cognizance　of　these　affairs。

When　two　parties　belonging　to　two　different　States　are　engaged　in　a　suit；　the　case　cannot　with　propriety　be　brought　before　a　court　of　either　State。　　The　surest　expedient　is　to　select　a　tribunal　like　that　of　the　Union；　which　can　excite　the　suspicions　of　neither　party；　and　which　offers　the　most　natural　as　well　as　the　most　certain　remedy。

When　the　two　parties　are　not　private　individuals；　but　States；　an　important　political　consideration　is　added　to　the　same　motive　of　equity。　　The　quality　of　the　parties　in　this　case　gives　a　national　importance　to　all　their　disputes；　and　the　most　trifling　litigation　of　the　States　may　be　said　to　involve　the　peace　of　the　whole　Union。　*f

＇Footnote　f：　The　Constitution　also　says　that　the　Federal　courts　shall　decide　〃controversies　between　a　State　and　the　citizens　of　another　State。〃　And　here　a　most　important　question　of　a　constitutional　nature　arose；　which　was；　whether　the　jurisdiction　given　by　the　Constitution　in　cases　in　which　a　State　is　a　party　extended　to　suits　brought　against　a　State　as　well　as　by　it；　or　was　exclusively　confined　to　the　latter。　　The　question　was　most　elaborately　considered　in　the　case　of　Chisholm　v。　Georgia；　and　was　decided　by　the　majority　of　the　Supreme　Court　in　the　affirmative。　　The　decision　created　general　alarm　among　the　States；　and　an　amendment　was　proposed　and　ratified　by　which　the　power　was　entirely　taken　away；　so　far　as　it　regards　suits　brought　against　a　State。　　See　Story's　〃Commentaries；〃　p。　624；　or　in　the　large　edition　Section　1677。＇　


The　nature　of　the　cause　frequently　prescribes　the　rule　of　competency。　Thus　all　the　questions　which　concern　maritime　commerce　evidently　fall　under　the　cognizance　of　the　Federal　tribunals。　*g　Almost　all　these　questions　are　connected　with　the　interpretation　of　the　law　of　nations；　and　in　this　respect　they　essentially　interest　the　Union　in　relation　to　foreign　powers。　　Moreover；　as　the　sea　is　not　included　within　the　limits　of　any　peculiar　jurisdiction；　the　national　courts　can　only　hear　causes　which　originate　in　maritime　affairs。

＇Footnote　g：　As　for　instance；　all　cases　of　piracy。＇

The　Constitution　comprises　under　one　head　almost　all　the　cases　which　by　their　very　nature　come　within　the　limits　of　the　Federal　courts。　　The　rule　which　it　lays　down　is　simple；　but　pregnant　with　an　entire　system　of　ideas；　and　with　a　vast　multitude　of　facts。　　It　declares　that　the　judicial　power　of　the　Supreme　Court　shall　extend　to　all　cases　in　law　and　equity　arising　under　the　laws　of　the　United　States。

Two　examples　will　put　the　intention　of　the　legislator　in　the　clearest　light：

The　Constitution　prohibits　the　States　from　making　laws　on　the　value　and　circulation　of　money：　If；　notwithstanding　this　prohibition；　a　State　passes　a　law　of　this　kind；　with　which　the　interested　parties　refuse　to　comply　because　it　is　contrary　to　the　Constitution；　the　case　must　come　before　a　Federal　court；　because　it　arises　under　the　laws　of　the　United　States。　　Again；　if　difficulties　arise　in　the　levying　of　import　duties　which　have　been　voted　by　Congress；　the　Federal　court　must　decide　the　case；　because　it　arises　under　the　interpretation　of　a　law　of　the　United　States。

This　rule　is　in　perfect　accordance　with　the　fundamental　principles　of　the　Federal　Constitution。　　The　Union；　as　it　was　established　in　1789；　possesses；　it　is　true；　a　limited　supremacy；　but　it　was　intended　that　within　its　limits　it　should　form　one　and　the　same　people。　*h　Within　those　limits　the　Union　is　sovereign。　　When　this　point　is　established　and　admitted；　the　inference　is　easy；　for　if　it　be　acknowledged　that　the　United　States　constitute　one　and　the　same　people　within　the　bounds　prescribed　by　their　Constitution；　it　is　impossible　to　refuse　them　the　rights　which　belong　to　other　nations。　　But　it　has　been　allowed；　from　the　origin　of　society；　that　every　nation　has　the　right　of　deciding　by　its　own　courts　those　questions　which　concern　the　execution　of　its　own　laws。　　To　this　it　is　answered　that　the　Union　is　in　so　singular　a　position　that　in　relation　to　some　matters　it　constitutes　a　people；　and　that　in　relation　to　all　the　rest　it　is　a　nonentity。　But　the　inference　to　be　drawn　is；　that　in　the　laws　relating　to　these　matters　the　Union　possesses　all　the　rights　of　absolute　sovereignty。　　The　difficulty　is　to　know　what　these　matters　are；　and　when　once　it　is　resolved　（and　we　have　shown　how　it　was　resolved；　in　speaking　of　the　means　of　determining　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Federal　courts）　no　further　doubt　can　arise；　for　as　soon　as　it　is　established　that　a　suit　is　Federal　…　that　is　to　say；　that　it　belongs　to　the　share　of　sovereignty　reserved　by　the　Constitution　of　the　Union　…　the　natural　consequence　is　that　it　should　come　within　the　jurisdiction　of　a　Federal　court。

＇Footnote　h：　This　principle　was　in　some　measure　restricted　by　the　introduction　of　the　several　States　as　independent　powers　into　the　Senate；　and　by　allowing　them　to　vote　separately　in　the　House　of　Representatives　when　the　President　is　elected　by　that　body。　　But　these　are　exceptions；　and　the　contrary　principle　is　the　rule。＇　

Whenever　the　laws　of　the　United　States　are　attacked；　or　whenever　they　are　resorted　to　in　self…defence；　the　Federal　courts　must　be　appealed　to。　Thus　the　jurisdiction　of　the　tribunals　of　the　Union　extends　and　narrows　its　limits　exactly　in　the　same　ratio　as　the　sovereignty　of　the　Union　augments　or　decreases。　　We　have　shown　that　the　principal　aim　of　the　legislators　of　1789　was　to　divide　the　sovereign　authority　into　two　parts。　　In　the　one　they　placed　the　control　of　all　the　general　interests　of　the　Union；　in　the　other　the　control　of　the　special　interests　of　its　component　States。　　Their　chief　solicitude　was　to　arm　the　Federal　Government　with　sufficient　power　to　enable　it　to　resist；　within　its　sphere；　the　encroachments　of　the　several　States。　As　for　these　communities；　the　principle　of　independence　within　certain　limits　of　their　own　was　adopted　in　their　behalf；　and　they　were　concealed　from　the　inspection；　and　protected　from　the　control；　of　the　central　Government。　　In　speaking　of　the　division　of　authority；　I　observed　that　this　latter　principle　had　not　always　been　held　sacred；　since　the　States　are　prevented　from　passing　certain　laws　which　apparently　belong　to　their　own　particular　sphere　of　interest。　　When　a　State　of　the　Union　passes　a　law　of　this　kind；　the　citizens　who　are　injured　by　its　execution　can　appeal　to　the　Federal　courts。

Thus　the　jurisdiction　of　the　Federal　courts　extends　not　only　to　all　the　cases　which　arise　under　the　laws　of　the　Union；　but　also　to　those　which　arise　under　laws　made　by　the　several　States　in　opposition　to　the　Constitution。　　The　States　are　prohibited　from　making　ex　post　facto　laws　in　criminal　cases；　and　any　person　condemned　by　virtue　of　a　law　of　this　kind　can　appeal　to　the　judicial　power　of　the　Union。　　The　States　are　likewise　prohibited　from　making　laws　which　may　have　a　tendency　to　impair　the　obligations　of　contracts。　*i　If　a　citizen　thinks　that　an　obligation　of　this　kind　is　impaired　by　a　law　passed　in　his　State；　he　may　refuse　to　obey　it；　and　may　appeal　to　the　Federal　courts。　*j　

＇Footnote　i：　It　is　perfectly　clear；　says　Mr。　Story　（〃Commentaries；〃　p。　503；　or　in　the　large　edition　Section　1379）；　that　any　law　which　enlarges；　abridges；　or　in　any　m