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

Z.
Congress to unite at once in pressing TINS
great enterprise to completion by favorable
national legislation, because it will bring
population, wealth, power, and develop
ment to the great southern section OF this
mig hty republic.
"OscILLATrNG TRANSPORTATION"
Judge Rfves,s Decision.-.Cannott the
state Apply for a Writ of Prohfbi.
tiOn?
To the Editors of the Dispatch: ...
In the communication l addressed you
some days back reviewing Judge Rives's de-
cision in the case of the Reynoldses. [ in
timated an opinion that the State OF Virgil
mia was without remedy in the premises,
Notwithstanding / was OF the opinion that
his action was forbidden by the Constitu-
ton. Since that communication was pub
lished the Attorney General has made re-
mort upon the subject to the Governor, in
which he appears to express the opinion that
there is no remedy, save by repeal OF the
act Of Congress under which Judge Rives
is acting. More mature consideration has
satisfied me that the opinion | intimated is
wrong, and that the State may apply to the
Supreme Court for a writ OF prohibition to
restrain Judge Rives from proceeding
further in the matter. [ will state the
grounds for this second opinion as briefly
as possible:
The judiciary act OF 1889 conferred upon
the Supreme Court power to issue writs OF
prohibition in all cases in admiralty, but it
conferred it in no other cases. Consequently
that court has in many cases Chose cited in
my first communication held that it had no
jurisdiction at the suit OF the parties apply
| ,,st, - in
admiralty causes. But none of these 1oere
cases in aohich the ORIGINAL jurisdiction
of the Supreme Court acdS invoked. They
were all cases of resort to its appellate juris-
diction-that is, they were not applications
by any Of the parties in whose behalf the
| Constitution gives the Supreme Court origi-
nal jurisdiction, and It's appellate iurisdic-
| ton, it has always held, is regulated by the
acts OF Congress.
Though it will somewhat prolong this ar
ticle, it is better that those provisions OF the
Constitution bearing upon the matter should
be quoted Article III, sections and 2,
are as follows:
Section 1. The judicial power Of the
United States shall be vested in one Supreme
| Court and in such inferior courts rs the Con-
gress may from time to time ordain and
establish.
| x.
tend to all cases in law and equity arising
under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States and treaties made, or which
shall be made under their authority; to all
cases affecting ambassadors, otter public
ministers and consuls; to all cases OF ad-
miraty and maritime jurisdiction; to con-
troyersies to which the United States shall
| be party /; to controversies between two
or more States; between a State and cti-
zens of another State; between citizens Of
different States; between citizens of the
same State claiming lands under grants OF
different States, and between State and the
citizens thereof. and foreign States, citizens
or subjects.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other
public ministers and consuls, and those In
aohich a State shall be party, the Supreme
Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In
all the other cases before mentioned the Su-
preme Court shall have appellate iurisdic-
ton both as to law and fact, with such ex-
ceptions and under such regulations as the
Congress shall make.
1t will be observed that this article OF the
Constitution makes the judicial power ex-
tend to all eases in law and equity arising
under the Constitution; and in CohenS Us.
| Virginia, 9Th Wheat, page 264. the Supreme
|
extend to all cases to the decision OF which
was necessary. (See opinion OF the
Court by Marshall, C. j., at page 379).
Therefore when the State OF Virginia
asserts that a correct construction Of
the Constitution OF the United States
forbids Judge Rives to take the ac'
tion that he has and is ordering,a case has
| arisen under the Constitution to which the
judicial power of the United States extends.
| Now, the article quoted provides that IN all
eases in which a State may be party the
Supreme Court shall have original lurlsdic.
| zion: that is, that whenever State asserts
| claim to which the iudicia! power OF the
United States extends; she may assert it in
the first instance in the Supreme Court.
That court has always and uniformly held
| that its original Jurisdiction being copfer-
red upon It by the Constitution, no act Of
Congress lean either enlarge or diminish If.
The same act ,(the judiciary act of 17S9Cat-
tempted to elothe 1t with power to award
writs OF manddntus to officers Of the United
States Government; but in the famous case
OF Mar6ary Us. Madison, Cranch, it held
4 that this was an attempt to give it original
| jurisdiction, in addition to that given to it
! by the Constitution, and that the act was
\ therefore void. Its uniform doctrine has
been that it can only.award the writ OF man
daneus as an incident OF and in aid Of its
appellate jurisdiction.
!. There Is no act Of Congress which at
! tempts to regulate the manner in which 1T
shall exercise its original jurisdiction. Con-
3IseQuenty the manner In which this shall be
fEeyercised is left to such methods as may be
prescribed and directed by itself. tits by
4 no means certain that Ii would regard any
net OF Congress which attempted to regulate
its procedure In this behalf except SO far as
the regulations might be regarded by it as
mostsuitabIe to accomplish the purposes OF
this original Jurisdiction. But however
/ this may be, 1t is certain chat as yet Con-
! gress has not attempted to regulate the man
4 nerinsWfiich Its original Jurisdiction shall
I be exercised, and that for the present It ex-
/ ercises it according to such methods as 1t
determines ITO. be appropriate TO accom-.
-