The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-04-19

l
act to establish the Judicial courts Of the United
States approved September "a. 1882" as authorizes
the Supreme Court of the United States or the exer
clse OF any such jurisdiction by said Supreme Court
on appeals which have been or may hereafter be
| takeu, be. and the same is hereby, repealed.
The attention of the court was directed to
this statute at the last term; but counsel hav-
| ing expressed q desire to be heard il argument
| upon its effect, and the Chief Justice being de-
tanned from his place here by his duties in the
Court of Impeachment. the case was continued
under Amusement. At this term we have
heard argument upon the effect of the repeal-
| ing act, and will now dispose Of the case.
The first question is necessarily that of iu-
| risdiction; for if the act Of March, 1885, takes
| away the jurisdiction defined by the act Of
February, 1867, it is useless, il not improper,
to enter into any discussion Of other questions.
| It is quite true, as was argued by the counsel
for the petitioner, that the appellate iursdic
ton Of this court is net derived from acts Of
congress. f It is, strictly speaking. conferred
such exceptions and under such regulations as
Congress shall make" 1t is unnecessary to
consider whether, if Congress had made no
exceptions and no regulations, this court might
not have exercised general appellate jurisdic-
ton under rules presented by itself; for among
the earliest acts of Congress, at its first ses-
sion, was the act OF September "a, 1889. to es-
tablish the judicial courts of the United States.
Ahat act provided for the organization of this
court. and presented regulations for the exer-
else Of its jurisdiction. The source of that
jurisdiction, and the Limitations Of it by the
constitution and by the statute, have been on
several occasions subjects Of consideration
here. In the case Of Duroussean VS.. The Uni
ted States, particularly, tho whole matter was
carefully considered, and the court held that
while "the appellate powers Of this court are
the constitution" they are nevertheless elm
tied and regulated by that act, and by such
other acts as have been passed on the subject"
The court held, further, that the judicial act
stitution to Congress ''of making exceptions to
the appellate Jurisdiction to the Supreme
Court" ''They have described afirmativey,"
said the court, 'its jurisdiction, and this
imply negative on the exercise Of such appel
late power as itis not comprehended within it,
The principle that the affirmation of jurisdic-
tion implies the negation OF all such jurisdic-
it was an almost necessary consequence that
acts Of Congress providing for the exercise of
jurisdiction should come to be spoken of as
acts granting, jurisdiction, and not as acts
OF it. The exception to the appellate juris.
diction in the case beforeus, however, is
not an inference from the affirmation of other
appellate jurisdictions. It is made in terms.
risdiction Of this court in cases of habeas cor
pus is expressly repealed. 1t is hardly possi-
bic to imagine palmer instance Of positive
exception. we are not at liberty to enquire
only examine its power under the constitution,
and the power to make exceptions to the ap-
pelate jurisdiction of this court is given BY
express words. What, then, is the effect Of
We cannot doubt as to this. Without jurisdic-
tiOn the court cannot proceed at all in any
cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the
law, and when it ceases tn eviat The cn!y e.nc=
tion remaining to the court is that OF announc-
ing the fact and dismissinR the cause. And
this is not less clear upon authority than upon
principle. Several cases were cited by the
counsel for the petitioner in support Of the DO
sition that jurisdiction Of this case is not aec-
ted by the repeating act, but none Of them in
our Judgment, afford any support to it. They
are all cases of exercise Of Judicial power by
with the courts in the exercise Of continuing
jurisdiction. On tho other hand, the general
rule supported by the best elementary writer's
pealed it must be considered, except as to the
transactions passed and closed, as il it never
existed" and the effect of repeating acts upon
suits under acts repealed has been determined
jeot was fully considered in Morris vs. Crocke'
and more recently in Insurance. Company vs.
Ritchie. in both Of which cases It was held that
no judgment could be rendered in a suit after
the repeal OF the act under which it was
brought and presented. It is quite clear,
therefore, that this court cannot proceed to
pronounce judgment in this case, Tor it has no
longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial
uuty ~ AO le5a utly porIOrUeu ny uocHnabS un-
authorized jurisdiction than in exercising
firmly that which the constitution and tina
laws confer. nnnnael seerc. tc have supposed,
il effect be given to the repeating act in ques-
tion, that the whole appellate power OF the
court in cases Of habeas corpus is denied. But
this is an error. The act Of 1868 does not OK
cept from that jurisdiction any other cases
and appeals from circuit courts under the act
Of 1867. It does not affect that jurisdiction
which was previously exercised; The appeal
OF the petitioner in this case must be dismissed
for want Of Jurisdiction.