Daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1859-1865, 1860-06-04

- ~ ANIA4 @N~OO
from the Circuit Court of theiUhited
States for the Eastern District of Pcnnsyl- |
vania, and was argued by counsel. On !
consideration whereof it is the opinion of
this court, that the said Circuit Court
could not entertain jurisdiction of this
cause, and that consequently THIS cUCRF
HAS NOT JURISDICTION IL THIS CAUSE, but
for the purpose of reversing the decree of
the said Circuit Court entertaining said
jurisdiction. Whereupon it is ordered,
adiudged and dccreed by this court, that
the decree of the said Circuit Court be and
the same is hereby reversed, and that this
appeal be and the same is hereby dis
missed. All of which is hereby ordered
to hc certified to the said Circuit Court
under the seal of this conrt." In this case
the Supreme Court WAS urged by the
counsel on both sides, for plaintiff and
defendant, to disregard the question of
| Jurisdiction and give an opinion on the
merits Mr. Peters, for the defendant,
stated that his client was 'anXious that
the court should hear and determine the
case" Mr.. Key, for the plaintiff, was equal
| Iy sOlicitous that the court should
disregard tenchnical objections, and de-
| eide the merits of the case. But the Court
percmptorily rsfused. Without qualified
parties, plaintiff and defendant, they would
| not move an inch or utter word. They
would not say what Mr.. jackson had Il
right to demand, or Mr.. Ashton ought
to do. They would not speculate upon
a theoretical case, as to what ought
to be the decision, if proper parties were
in court But they say the parties are not
in court, and we decide nothing. This
court has no jurisdiction, except simply to
ascertain and authenticate the want of
Jurisdiction in the Circuit Court. And
they were right Their refusal to proceed
at the solicitation of both parties, may at
| first sight seem little harsh. But their
compliance would have been n bad prece-
dent. 1t would have afforded aid and
comfort to the volunteers and usurpers,
who delivered stump speeches in the bred
| Scott case.
If any proposition ls legally true and
indisputnbIe, it is that the Appellate iuris-
diction of the Supreme Court of the United
States, is correlative to that of the Cir
cult Court, is measured by it, and is just
| sufficient to correct ~ usurpation Ot juris-
| divtIOn by the Circuit Court. and no more
For this see Dunn and others vs.. Clark
and others, 9Th Peters list, III and Sd pages
! Graham, a. citizen OF Virginia had, i'll the
Circuit Court of the United States for the
/ District of Ohio, recovered tract OF land
Graham died and Walter Dunn, a citizen
of Ohio, became devisce OF the land. in
| trust, under the will OF Graham. y Bill
in Chancery was filed in the Circuit Court
to cniUin the Judgment at law on eTuitH-
| bic grounds. New parties were made to
! the Bill, who had not been parties or prI-
| vies TO the suit at law, and the death of
| Graham left all parties residents of the
| State of Ohio. The Court say con this
state of facts question is raised whcth-
er this Court has jurisdiction Of the cause
| The question seems not to have beer mace
| in the Circuit Court" Then after some
! further reasoning, the Court say "the in
! junction bill is not considered an original
| bill between the same parties as at Law;
but if other parties are made in the bill
and different interests involved, it must be
| considered, To that extent at least, an
original bill; and the jurisdiction of the
| Circuit Court must depend upon the citi-
Zcnship of the parties. In the present
case, several persons are made defendants,
who were not parties or Privies to the suit
at law, and no jurisdiction as to them can
be exercised by THIS or THE CIRCUIT
COURT And in the formal certificate
which they made out, they reitcr"tc
the opinion, "that no jurisdiction can
be exercised by this or the Circuit Court"
because several persons were made de-
| PENDANTS, who were not parties or priv
| les 10 the suit Mt law. Reader. have
| | not made good my position, that the
appellate power of the Supreme Court
, is merely deriYntiYe, is commensurate
! with that OF the Circnit Court, is circum-
| scriLcd by it, is just suflicientto TO check the
/ exorbtnncc of the last named Court, and
no more. lii all these authorities do You
! get any glimpse of the position that the
Supreme Court may go on and discuss and
/ 81 Sk- FOFf In
case, upOn writ of error or appeal, where
the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction? /
know that the Judges in the bred Scott
case, assert with the utmost force of their
/ lungs, that they may do so; but every de-
cision on the subject, from the first OF
! Dallas to the eighteenth Howard inclu-
sive. is against them. They themselves
were then making the first bad precedent
for what they were determined to do
They attempted to change tnc Constitu-
ton of the United States uninvitcd, un-
hidden, unauthorized as they were; aud
no men nre so unfit for the task as the
volunteers, who are ready to assume it
spontaneously and obviously.
have given the more modern AuthorI-
ties on the subject, those who wish to
consult the earlier, are referred to Bing-
ham vs. Cabot, 81 Dallas, 3s2; Capron VS..
Van Nuorllen, I'd Cranch, l26, and MOnta-
! let VS.. Murray, 4th Cranch, 4G. These
cases all relate to jurisdictiOnal questions,
and the reader may see for himself,
whether the Supreme Court is authorized
to go ON specuiating about the merits of
cases after having ascertained that the
court below had no jurisdiction.
The discussion will be resumed in the
next essay.
A SON OF THE OLD DOMINION.
.Doy.r DESERT AN OLD TpIzsD ron ysw r41E."