The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-03-01


and establish, and 10 the same article. sec
ton 2, it Is provided thai " II an cases q
fecting Ambassadors other pubic minister ~
and C1nsuiS. and those ~ which csats
shall Be party, the Supreme Couf. snah
have original Jurisdiction. ln at ths
other casss before mentioned the supreme
Court shall base appellate jurisdiction, ootn
IS % las and fact, with such exceptions
and under such regulations az the Congress
shall make
Under these clauses Of the orgauic law 4
has been decided that the power ct the
Supreme Court, as court Of original Juris-
dicfian, can neither be increased nor d.
minished, By Congress Narbary v. Mad
ison. Craaeli. 1917. but that It has only
such appellate power As Congress may see
IFS q confer up8n It lDurousseau vs..
Unisea States. 6 Cfanch, 307. BIZ; Barry vs..
Meresip, Howard, los, II91, II the case
last cited the language OF the Court e
By the Constitution of the United States.
the Supreme Court possesses no aFpelia e
power in anyacase, unless conferred upon u
os act Of Congress nor can Il, when e7ntef-
red, lie exercised IN any etheF form ny any
other mode Of proceeding shan that which the
law pFescribes.
It necessarily follows that if Congress
sh0ulJ choose to take away entirelg the
appellate power nov exercised by the Sns
prenle Court ard 10 vest il in some other
tribunal, it would be competent for it 50 to
do Why should il not be equally compe-
tent for il to vest that appellate power in a
section or sections Of the Supreme Court !?
Why might it not provide that any three or
more of the justices OF that court should
constitute Court Of Appeals? Such an ar
rangement certainly would be no more open
70 objection, on the ground Of unconstItu-
tionaiity, than the enactments which assign
the justices Of the Supreme Court to circuit
duty, or their proposed assignment 70 new
courts in accordance with the plan of the
Davis bill? This objection of demonstrations
atty is based entirely upon the erroneous
assumption that the Supreme Court exercises
its appellate power under the same unlim
tied unconstitutional warrant under
which it holds its original jurisdiction
With the latter Congress cannot in any
Dlanner interfere; with the former it can
do what1t peases. The Supreme Court Is
one and indivisihle in the exer-
else OF its original jurisdiction. There can
be no just reason under the Constitution
aud IFS own decisions. already cited why ii
should not be subdivided for the purpose
of appeals.
Probably it would be well to amend the
Manning bin 50 as to provide for the crea-
ton of three (or two) Courts of Appeal, u
be held By three Tor more) justices of the
Supreme Court to be assigned to them, in
stead Of subdividing the Court in terms.
This would certainly obviate even the
shadow of unconstitutionality.
The advantages Of this plan are mainly
that it creates no new judges, no substan-
tally distinct and separate courts; that ii |
employs the judicial agencies now in exist |
enee; that it is simpler and more economi
al than any other; that it will enable the I
Supreme Court to clear its own docket in I
Driei time, and that when it has cleared it |
t may, without difficulty, return to the
present arrangement with a manageable
locket, reduced within reasonable limits
md thereafter easily kept within control