The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-04-04

The CASE OF CHAunnN vs.. EI.LTs0N.-
Hon. JollS W. BRoCKrEEHorGn, LII. D., OF
Lexington, formerly United States judge
himself, gave the other day al opinion on
the aboyc-namcd case before the law-cass
of Washington College. We regret that we
have not room foc his luminous opinion as
It appears in the Gazette. We give few
points:
"Many questions have arisen in the ar
guments of the learned counsel on either
side, but the fundamental question under
consideration is that of jurisdiction. 1t is
assumed and denied By the respective par
ties, plaintiff and defendant, that the dis
trict court of the United States has juris-
liction. The whole Of the plaintiffs case
3 stated on his bill, and the presentation
of the plaintiffs pTetensions presents their
best and most convincing rcfutGtion.
The Federal courts of every degree ore
courts of special and limited, not of gene
raj, jurisdiction. They have no common
law jurisdiction, and can only exercise
such judicial powers as they are invested
| with, either expressly or by fair and rea-
|
principle has been so often decided and SO
universally admitted from the very founda-
ton of the Government that il is unncces-
sarv to cite authorities.
| "Thc legal sequence o! the proposition
that these courts Can only exercise special
and limited jurisdiction is tia. the autho-
rty for its jurisdiction must appear al
| tirmatiyely on the face OF The declaration
| nr bill, else the demurrer mast lie sustained
and the declaration or bill must be q"uShcd,
| If indeed it he not dismissed on mere mo-
lion. (Stcphen on Pleading, 1919
at is inmaterial whether thc pleading
| lemurrcd to is a declaration nj law or bill
III equity. If ii does not show Oh its face
| facts sufficient TO ground Inc jurisdiction
upon, ii must be qu0&hcd.
"Thc want Of jurisdiction is SO exceed
ingly clear that whatever judge Underwood
NAV do-and he seems to have pTciud9ca
The case-iti is impossible to doubt that truth
and justice will ultimately triumph throug!
the more elevated views o! 4 more cnlight.
cncd tribunal.
"But il the objection OF n want OF n pro-
per avcrmcnt OF citizenship in another
State could 10y any means have been avoided
the demurrer must still have been fataI
to the plaintiffs case, on the ground that he
had mistaken his remedy, if any he had
1t would he Il strange anomaly to Gust m
incumbent from Office and put another into
it by bill IN equity, No such prcccdont
can he found. The remedy would be found
not in equity, hut i'll the ancient common
law writ of Il q'to .rdrrIafo, or in the mo-
iern subSt tutc for it, Of Il writ in tie R0ture
of that writ. (Foiteaux as. The Banks, !;
Rand. Bouyicr's L. D.4l7.) Ifthis remedy
had been resortod to, there would be no
pretcnce TO say that the Federal court could
have had jurisdiction. The remedy must
have been, if anywhere, 1t common law,
and in a State court-always n court OF
general jurisdiction. If judgment of 0ustef
had been refused, Oh appeal: by the cour;
of appeals, the final remedy, if any: could
be found (Which is by no means conccded)
would have been in the Supreme Court OF
the United States under the 18th section
,oi the Judiciary act of 1889.
"In no conceivable case could there ht
any wellfounded jurisdiction to sustain the
prctensions Of the plaintiff in the case al
: bar.
1.-The decision of the Supreme Court Of {
State can only be reversed by the Supreme
Court Of the United States by virtue of thu
18th section of the Judiciary act of 1889
No district or circuit Court Of Tie Unitet
States has any Jurisdiction in such q!
c issue.