Arizona weekly citizen., 1894-08-11
LAND COURT APPEALS.
An Important Statement Respecting
 Appeals.
To the Ed tor of the New Mexican;

To the Ed tor of the New Mexican; SANTA Fe, July 3l.-In yoGr note of this date you ask me what is the rumor that the attorney general of the United States has concluded that an appeal from the court of private land claims to the supreme court will no lie, and that the judgment of the court is therefore conclusive?
 conclusions of the attorney general may be upon the subject. 1 am aware of the fact, through the solicitor general, that the matter has been under consideration by the departmeet, but what the conclu- sion has been, I do Tot know. F I have examined into the question as to whether or not an appeal would lie to the supreme court, if so provided by congress, and have been decidedly ol the opinion that such an appeal would lie; but the question now seems to be, as to whether congress has not provided that the supre me court shall assume original, instead of appellate jurisdiction over these cases.
 So that you may more fully under. stand the matter, I will tate, that it was at first contended that the court of private land claims, not being a con- stltutional court, no appeal would he to the supreme court, even if properly so provided by congress.
 It is true, the tribunal is not consti- tutiOnal one, but falls within that class designated as Legislative courts" The questions to be adiudIcate[i fall within the judical powers of the United States, as defined by the constitution and also further fall within said powers by reason of the United States being a party.
 It makes no difference whether the court or tribunal called upon to decide the cases is constitutional or legislative; 1t is the questions they are called upon to decIde that determine the jurisdic- tion. It was so held ID the case of Mar tin vs. Huuter, 1. Wheaton, wherein the court said:
 It is the case, not the court that gov ern5 the lurlSutcSlOn-
 There can be no doubt that congress could lawfully and properly provide for an appeal from judgment of thIs court to the supreme court of the United States. But the question now arises, has 1t done so? And this seems to be the point upon which the whole ques- tion IS likely to turn. The language of ] the act is es follows:
 "On any such appeal the supreme | court shall retry the cause, as well as | the issues of fact as of law, and may cauFe testimony to be taken Tn addition to that given in the court below, and may amend the record of the proceed 1 ings below as truth and justice may re | quIre; and on such retrlal and hearine every question shall be open, anG th' decisiOA of the supreme court thereon shall be final and conclusive"
 It is strongly contended that the sXer else of Jurisdiction by the supreme cour under such provision, being trial de novO, is the exercise of original and no appellate jurisdiction. Such was tn
 holding of the supreme court upon ap
 peals from the board of land commis sioners to the district courts in Celifor
 mia, end there seems to be TO good req son why it will in this instance var.
 from that holding.
 The constitution dafines the cases Ove
 which the judicial power of the Unite'
 States shall extend. and in the sectiol
 defining the various cases, 1t says:
 "In all Ceases affecting ambassadors
 other public ministers and consuls, an
 those in which state shall be a party
 the supreme court shall have origin6
 jurisdiction In all other cases befor
 mentioned the supreme court shall hay
 appellate jurisdiction, both as to law ant
 fact, with such exceptions and unde
 such regulations as congress shal
 make"
 It is thus clear that the supreme cour
 Can not exercise original jurisdiction
 over cases from this court, and if tn | language of sections of the act creat
 ing the court of private land claims is t