The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-12-25

{ ,Ifa tfnp the purposes for which Its
igir,al Jurisdictions may tbe invoked.
In In The SiaIe Of Florida Us. The State OF
slIeor0f1. in n How, the Supreme Court
say at mage 49l: {. But the Const ituttoH pre-
scribes no particular mode OF proceeding,
nor IS there any act OF Congress upon the
subject. And alta very early period OF inc
Government doubt arose whether the
Court conld exercise its original 5urlsdlc-
ton without a previous act Of Congress
regulating the process and mode OF pro-
ceeding. But the Court, upon mucD con,
sideration, held that although Congress had
undoubtedly the right to prescribe the pro-
cess and mode Of proceeding in such cases
as fully as I'm any other ccurt,ye the omls-
sion to iegisate on the subject could bot
deprive the Court Of the Jurisdiction con-
ferred; that it YVES duty imposed upon
the Court; aud in the absence OF any legls-
lation by Congress, the Court itself was al-
thorized to prescribe its mode and form of
proceeding. so as to accomplish the ends for
which the Jurisdiction was given" And
in. tue case of The State OF Kentucky Us.
.Deantson, "a How, that Court, ut page 9s.
SAYS The cases referred to leave no qles-
tion open to controversy as to the lnrl5dic-
tion of the Court. They show that it has
been the established doctrine upon this sub
cases where original Jurisdiction is given
by the Constitution this Court has authority
to exercise it without any further act OF
Congress to regulate its process or confer
Jurisdiction, and that the Court may resu.
late and mould the process 1t uses in such
manner as in its judgment will best promote
the purposes Of Justice"
AS far back as the year 1892 the State OF
Georgia filed its bill in the Supreme Court
alleging that by virtue Of her confiscatiCn
laws, enacted during the Revolutionary
war, she was entitled to debt due by one
OF her citizens, evidenced by bond. to one
Braiisford, subject of Great Britain; that
the said Brailsford had instituted suit i'll
the Circuit Court OF the United States for
the District Of Georgia upon the bond, had
recovered judgment, and issued execution
upon it; that the State had attempted TO IN
teryene in the suit and assert her claims to
the debt, but that the Court had refused to
allow her to do so. She therefore prayed
the Court TO award an injunction to restrain
the marshal from levying further the said
executions and to stay whatever moneys
he might have raised under them, in
his hand, until the State could make
her claim good, and that upon max
ing it good her citizen should be de-
creed TO pay the money due over to her.
The Supreme Court awarded the injunction
as nrayed for. This case is reported in I'd
Dallas, 402, and again at page 415. An issue
was then tried by jury at the bar OF the
Supreme Court, between the State OF Gcor-
gin and Braisford, to determine which OF
the two was entitled to the bond; in which
the Jury found for Brailsford. This case is
reported in Dallas, 1. In the case Of The
State Of Pennsylvania Us. The Wheeling
Bridge Company-reported in Howard.
II Howard, and 10 Uoward-the State OF
Pennsylvania filed her bill in the Supreme
Court, alleging that the defendant compa-
ny was erecting bridge over the Ohio
river IN such manner as to obstruct the
citizens Of Pennsylvania in using that river
according to their rights in it, and praying
for m Injunction. The Court awarded the
Injunction, appointed master to take tes-
timony, and acted upon the testimony as
any other court would in an ordinary case.
The States have many times applied to the
Supreme Court for the exercise of its origi-
nal jurisdiction, and when proper case is
made it has always entertained the applica-
ton, never mind what species OF relief
might be sought. 1t would be interesting
TO give the particular facts Of each case, and
the sort OF redress given by the Court in
each case, but to do so would prolong this
article to too great length.
1t seems clear, therefore, that the Supreme
Court willtake original jurisdiction OF every
complaint made to it by State, which
amounts to such case as requires for its
decision the true and correct construction
OF the Constitution OF the United States,
and that it will direct such proceedings and
frame such writs as will be most appropri-
ate and etiectual for accomplishing such re-
- RI, Irot RI no irt, RI
per III the premises. conclude, therefore,
original jurisdiction Tor writ OF prohibit
ton to restrain Judge Rives from proceed
ing further in this matter. This completes
the discussion of this point. I will send
you, as soon as it can be prepared, review
OF the opinion in the cases which Judge
Rives has published.
WILLIAM L. ROYAL.