The enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1804-1815, 1808-07-29
ENQUIRER OFFICE,
J0Er %, ISeS.

Its true colours. it cannot fail being ac-
ceptable to the reader 1t is presumed
this letter has been circulated among the
different Collectors Of the u. s.
SIR,
have read and considered wie papers
and documents referred to me relative to the
case of m6ndamus, issued BY the circuit
court OF the United States for the district of
South Carolina to compel the collector of the
port of Charleston to graat clearances TO GER
tain vessels.
The first question that presents itself is,
whether the court possessed the power of is
suing mdndanngs in such a Casct
A mandanus in England, is styled pre-
negative writ, and in that country is award
ed solely and exclusively by the court of
king s-bcnch.
The constitution and laws of the United
States establish our judicial system. To
these we must refer in order to ascertain the
jurisdiction of the respective courts, the cx-
tent OF their powers, and the limits of their
authority.
The - Act to establish the judicial courts
of the United States" passed on the 24th of
September 1889, declares and defines the ju-
risdiction of the several courts thereby Gre
ated, and among these the jurisdiction of the
circuit courts Upon careful and attentive
perusalit will be found TO delegate to the Cir
cult courts no power to issue writs of man
daDius. In the thirteenth section of that act.
this authority is expressly given to the SUI
preme court of the United States. In like
manner it is specially provided by the act of
the third of February, 1901, that the supreme
court shall have power 70 issue writs of man
damus. This last act having been repealed
and the former revived, the question must
rest upon the true construction to be given
to the original act.
The eleventh section defines and limits the
jurisdiction OF the circuit courts. 1t is sps-
cially appropriated to this single object
There are no expressions in this section
which can fairly be interpreted to confer the
authority of issuing writs ofma1damus. Nor.
can the power be either implied or inferred
from any language it contains. 1t is true the
proceeding by mondamuS in Eng is on
the crown side, as it is termed, OF the court
of king's-bcnch But is prosecution rea-
tive to the civil right to enforce it, and to
obtain prompt redress; and not to punish
CIiI,Iiraiiy as in the case OF an offence. The
provision therefore that the circuit corrts
&c shall have exclusive cognizance of all
:. crimes and offences equitable under the
" authority of the United States, erceht
F" 7vhen The Gct otherwise firoyfdeS &C. can
not warrant such a proceeding. BESIDES the
same act does provide that the supreme
court shall Issue writs Of niandanius. Anau-
tbority given perhaps. because its iurisdc-
ton extends all over tie United States
The fourteenth section, Immediately sue
ceeding that which gives this authority in
plain and positive terms to the supreme
court .isolelv, if not exclusively, land the af-
frmative frequently, and in this case Justly,
I think implies negative,) contains the fol-
lowing provision All the before menti-
=. oned Courts Of the United States, (inclu-
&. ding the supreme, we'll the circuit
IS and district CouTts) shall have power to
&c issue writs of scire ,facias, Ha6eas CORPUS,
a' and all other writs not specially provided
'' for by statute, which may be necessary
g for the exercise of their respective juris-
" dictiens.' This clause cannot effect the
case, l conceive. The mahdomuS is writ,
which we have seen specially provided for
by law. This section was evidently not de-
signed to give any additional jurisdiction to
either of the courts, but merely the means
Of executing that jurisdiction already gran
ted to them respectively. The issuing Of a
ahandamus in the case under consideration
was an act of original jurisdiction. Pre-
cisely as muck So as it would have been in
the supreme court, to have exercised the
power in the case of Mal'bury VS.. Madison.
I'm that case the supreme CoWrt declared, that
co issue a mdnGanlus to the Secretary of
State, would be TO exercise an original ju-
r;sdiction, nos given by the constitution and
y3hich could not be granted by Congress =
The constitution having enumerated or de-
ciared the particular cases in which the SUI
preme CONT should exercise original juris-
diction, though there were no negative ex-
pressions, the affirmative they Considered
implied them. 1t was on this principle a.
lone they refused 10 exert their authority.
The practice believe, has uniformly been,
so far as Can trace 1t from Tie books of re-
ports, that have beer published, or from re-
collection and experience on the subject, to
apply to the supreme Court for Il nfaRGamns.
This court, tits true, have determined not to
issue toe writ when it would be an act af o.
riginal Jurisdiction. Put tbis, ap2rehend,
can afford NO Ground for the circuit court S as
Stunning an authority, which the supreme
Court have declined, unless by q legislative
att the power be delegated to them. This
power is not inherent nor necessarily Incl
dental 10 a court Of Justice, even of general
jurisdiction. For in England, but single
one, OF several courts having general juris-
diction, POSSESSES the authority Neither
the chancery, the common pleas, nor the
eXchequcr. though c,dssed among the kings
superior courts, and having general iurisdiC-
ton over the reein, can exercise this power.
It's the peculiar privilege che king's-bench
alone. Oar circuit Courts have merely To-
cal and subordinate jurisdiction. Their a
Daiogies therefore with the four cour:s of
TupDuI huv:rs~ o.a,,ct.ui s,,J c,,r,.r.,o, t,,,;.