New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-03-16
SUPREME COrRT-tiENPRlL TtRr-NlRcu l4-B,f for
justices LEONARD SUTHERLAND aud CLgngg

TIVE CASE on TIE MINISTER 10 BoGoTA
The Particulars OF the foowjn action have here.
toore been reported The up row on the decision
ofhe appeal taken BY the plaintiff from The decision ~ he
General Tenn % tho removal Of the 10 the Federal
Ceorro w Jones '. William II. Seward
'hoSfo Tile question Is not whether the 4th section
dcir'e 70 he acton The rne Question I. tiis T. Il ~ 10
rover o. O'hses 10 give The Ccut Cou!I sIclior ofle
The Constitution extends the Judicial power Of The Union 10
I ~ ae tII s4ay sIiug under the ConsutiOp, laws
Ihe delne Ia ts case arises under the oct Of Congress,
d me validity OF that act considered IN III, lgh afforded nv
mo Constitution viii be Of the principal Subjects 10 b.
oet mined at ne trial II has been decided that case ars.
within The moaning Of the Constitution well when The de-
iendsn eeis protection under law Of Congress as when
pauin comes into Court to demand some hight conferred by
IL has been objected that me original iursdicion Of al &C.
ois nsy Do drawn into the Federal Courts by similar
nets Of Congress. AMI that the case urcs within tbe nsaniny
Of the Constitution only ser trisl and judgment In tb
o,d "he9 .Hs scon can be- referred by writ error or
The power Of transferring TO tho United sites Cir
cut a similar nsnner where tho question involved was Of
sn spPoate end net original Jurisdiction has long been ,us
Chief Justice Marshall says in the ease Of Osborn v. The
no ground on witch the proposition be uantansd fbst
incapable OF giving tho Circuit Courts OF FINAL
ISL - " wy Ce'e 70 "hich The appellate jurisdiction
Congress has enacted that The defendant may oterooso IN
the transfer Of cases involving such defense In Tie
prescribed, into the Circuit Court,
.en have nothing TO do with the yai'y the law 40
defense to The sctcn i IS sufficient the state Court
VA TIE deiec Involves the contraction and sHcc, of ~
The case hes then arisen when the Courf Of tbe
,ed states may have junsdicon Congress directs II
ne sw Go0s not taoTd constitutional valid defence "a eau
1o now DO doubted that the learned Ju tees Of The c5
s.s.s S1s Wi 80 deele H. when ihe jurisdiction Of such
WI remain Ia the State Courts before the cnaetonT
y we lew IL not duty 10 assert the Independence d
sud 20 and srsdetion for o final eonsruc
sna eIets Of ali acts OF Congress may b. brought ber.
ohed states Courts By the express provision OF tie Con
Inc manner o. taking the 10 those Cor. 1. OF
c1 TIC supreme Court Of The Union must be relied on
prevent s Jurisdcon from being uuaw fully reudcJ H.,
H. @ ana Of The opinion, therefore. that Congress has
y power 70 direct the tfsntfer Of such cases -
IN ny opinion this application was unnecessary Il; or q,
~, lie y tHcoit Court with the possession Of the action
e ,.Asu,slon has not been lost na,nuch ms II viii he
1w ssned That this Court will not in Mi, ind, ., yes
nS ~ cesnssnce Of cases Which have been rsnsfsrred
ucI s ACT OF Congre IL very proper that an
eied the 10 the o. y Circnit q. n ssarJ
~ eIae nee IN me Court Of the deposition made OF H.
snvhg AZ ny conclusions have committed SLOW, c,
!ls ceai2lien IehsF 10 e so3 so. &c, &C. IWk..i