The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-03-28

Is T. .
sTITTTloSALITI OF THE ENABLING
.CT.rowEEs OF THE GOVERNOR
HOW ME. CHAlIO0N SHOULD PRO-
CEEp-powERs uF THE LtGtSLATURF'
&C.. &c.
The United States Circnit Court met Sa-
turday morning nj 10 o'clock--Judge ): Z.
Underwood presiding. After transrtlns
some other business, the court took up the
city government njunction case.
SPEECH OF JAMES NEEsoN, Esq.
1t is irksomc and sometimes Improbable
to occupy the position | am forced to oc-
cupy in this case, because the cause has
been so fully and ably argued by those that
preceded me thai there is very little lett
for me TO add. But | have duty to per-
form here, and hope shall not fail in its
performance. We stand before United
States court clothed with power and alt
thority, and to that power the plaintiff has
appealed against the defendant, whom we
represent. \ great deal has been
said by counsel in this case foreign
to the subject. Much has been said
that might have been said if this court
we're trying an impeachment against the
State Government, and much that might
have been said in political case How
il is expected that this court is to inter-
ferc in such matters passes my compre-
hcnsion. The question is not whether the
Republican party or the True Republican
party is the right one. 1t is not whether
Governor Walker is better or worse Go
vernon than his competitor would have
been. 1t is not whether the Legislature
has acted wisely or unwisely in their acts.
That is a purely political question. 1t is
simply question whether anything has
been done over which this court has juris-
dction. Much has been said in this court
calculated to irritate party feeling. Much
has been said to foster a spirit of insuh-
ordination. whether it was so intended
or not, AMI it may prove that those who
have sowcd the wind mag reap the whirl-
wind, and those who have sowed dragons
teeth may reap armed men. l stand
here not representing any political party,
but to discuss q simple question of law al
fecting my client. 1t had been said by op-
posing counsel that it was an unusual thing
10 argue the question of jurisdiction
on motion for injunction. Sir, it is
not an unusual thing to meet the allegations
Of your adversarics, and in 4 motion for
injunction the first thing to be decided is
Jurisdiction. Our very first proposition is
a denial that the United States Circuit
Court of Virginia has jurisdiction, or
can take cognizance Of this case in any
way. How do they found their claim that
your Honor possesses jurisdiction One
founds it on the reconstruction acts, and an
other on liberal construction OF the acts
for the suppression of rebellion. They re-
ferred to the Constitution of the United
States-most undoubted authority. | now
also invite your attention to that authority.
Unlike al act Of Congress, it defines no
thing. Tie I'd article declares that the
judicial power of the United States shall
extend to the cases therein declared. 1t is
the judicial power of the United States, and
not the power of any court of the United
States. 1t provides that the judicial power
shall he vested in the Supreme Court of
the United States, and in inferior courts
established 10y Congress. Section de-
clares that the power shall extend to all
matters in common law and equity arising
under the laws of the United States where
tho United States is party, between citi-
zens of different States, etc. 1t declares
the judicial power Of the United States
shall extend to these cases-that is, the
power of the Government, which is to be
distributed by act of Congress to particular
courts.
The Corrr: DO you mean to deny en-
tircly jurisdiction by implication?
Mr.. NEEsoN: i mean that the court can
not take jurisdiction by implication unless
ii be by granted powers contained in an
act Of Congress. 1t must first be within
the Constitution, and it must also he under
an act of Congress. deny that jurisdic-
tion is acquired by assumption or implica-
ton in any Federal court. Jurisdiction
over a case when granted by Congress may
be exercised by implication as to modes of
procedure.
The Court You remember, Mr.. Neeson,
the Chief Justice decided that the court
had jurisdiction in case because an act OF
Congress had authorized its removal from
State to United States courts, though nc
act had given original jurisdiction i'll the
case.
Mr.. NEEsoN: Yes, sir; that was case
between a citizen of Kentucky against a
citizen of Virginia, in which [ was counsel.
In that case Congress had plainly given ju-
risdiction by removal. And that is what |
maintain here, that there is no jurisdiction
in this court except under an act of Con-
gress In lst keuts Commentaries, p. 3l4,
it is shown that both the Constitution and
acts Of Congress must concur in giving the
jurisdiction. This is decided with empha-
sis in Sth Howard, AL, and 7th Cransh,
p. 5O4. So, your Honor will concede that
this court has no power except by act OF
Congress, and that power, when 1t gets II,
is called jurisdiction. In Brightly's D-
gest, p. l26, p. 127, it is laid down that the
circuit court has concurrent jurisdiction
with the State courts specified cases, and
exclusive jurisdiction in all crimes
against the United States. In this case
the jurisdiction of this court has been
limited. 1t might have been extended
to all differences between citizens Of diff
ferent States, but it was not, und was
limited by the amount in dispute and citi-
zenship. ..-..' .......
If the plaintiffs remedy is an
equitable remedy, he must 60 into a
court of equity, first establishing the juris-
diction of the court. The jurisdiction OF
the court, I agree, depends some times on
the subjectmatter in controversy. These
are specified. They are cases involving
patent rights, copyrights, SC. BY re-
ference to lst Brightlie's Digest, P.
l26, note D, it is seen that contro-
versies in these things may be taken cog
nizance Of though the parties are citizens
of the same State. Then, also, this court
may have jurisdiction in causes removed
from State courts; but the sum in contro-
versy must be $500, and the parties must
be citizens of different States. I'd Bright
j ;o,u ninest n LIZ sec II. Congress- pro-