The sun., 1906-02-15
COURT REVIEW IN THE HEPBURN
BILL.
A Definite and Anirmatiyo Destowal OF
.JurtsIlCtiOn II Necessary.

Jurisdiction IL Necessary
To THE EpITon or THE suN--sir; I think
| you do we'll to call attention 20 the ann guous
provisions OF the Hepburn bill concerning the
submission to the judicial authority OF con-
troversies arising under 1t.
| The expression "a court OF competent
| Jurisdiction" does not confer Jurisdiction
upon any court whatever to try these con-
| troversies. That the question whether
| rate is reasonable is indubltably Judiciai
one you point out. as has been already pointed
out by the Supreme Court Of the United
States In cases which you cite as well as In
| a number OF others.
The courts OF the United States have juris-
diotIon only in those cases In which 1t is con-
| ferred by words Of definite designation or
| the court and OF the authority; all attempts
| to spell out jurisdiction from doubtful words
and phrases have been resisted In those
courts. and II is their settled doctrine that.
| while they are superior courts. there is no
! presumption Of Jurisdiction. but on the con-
| trary that It must affirmatively appear. For
| example, one Of tho very earliest cases In the
| Supreme Court or the United States. at
| time when II sat In Philadelphia and It's re-
| ports were published In the same volume
| with those Of the Supreme Court OF that state
and the Circuit Court for the Pennsylvania
district. is Turner VS.. the Bank. Dallas. 3.
| There the court said:
| tion. and has cOgnizance not OF cases generally
but only Of few specially circumstanccd. amount
| Ing to small proportion OF the cases which an
unlimited jurisdiction would embrace. And the
fair presumption Is mot as with regard TO court
Of general Jurisdiction that cause is within Its
Jurisdiction unless the contrary appears but rahcr
that a cause Is without Its Jurisdiction TIL the con
| trary appears This rcndersit necessary. inasmuch
| as the proceedings Of no court can be deemed
valid further than Its Jurisdiction appears or can
| bo presumed. to set forth upon the record OF
Circuit Court the facts circumstances which give
| Jurisdiction. either expressly or In such manner
as 10 render them certain by legal intendment.
Tho comment Of Chief Justice Ellsworth
and Of Mr.. Justice Chase upon the argument
| OF counsel that Jurisdiction might be acquired
| In some Indirect manner without legislation
Is certainly instructive:
ELLSWORTH, Chief Jusce-How far is It meant
| TO carry this argument VIII be affirmed that
| In every case to which the judicial power OF the
| United States extends the Federal courts may
| exercise q jurisdiction. without the Intervention
| Of tho Legislature 10 distribute and regulate the
| power,
| CHASE. Justce-The notion has frequently been
entertained that the Federal courts derive their
judicial power Immediately from the Constitution:
but the political truth Is that the disposal of the
judicial power except In few specified instances)
| belongs to Cong ress. II Congress has given the
power to this court we possess 1t, not otherwise:
and II Congress has not given the power to us, or
70 any Ouer COURT " sun AZ ltkiNh-
| tive disposal
This case was decided In 1909; and from
| that time to the present 1t has been followed
| by the Supreme Court OF the United States.
For example in Grace vs. The Insurance
| Company, 100 U. s.. 27s decided in 1885, occurs
the following expression. upon the authority
Of the Turner case:
As the Jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court Is limited,
In the sense that II has no other Jurisdiction than
that con ~ the Constitution laws the
United States. the presumption Is that cause Is
without Its jurisdiction unless the contrary atfrma
lively appears
The last case which shall cite was decided
In the following year in the same court, Rail-
way Company VS.. Swan. Ill L. s., page $40.
where the court uses the following language:
On every writ OF error appeal the first and
fundamental question Is that OF Jurisdiction, first,
OF this court and then Of the court from which the
record comes This question the court Is bound
10 ask and answer for itself, even when not other
| wise suggested and without respect TO the relation
OF the parties to 1t. This rule adopted In
Capron VS.. Van Noorden, Cranch. l26. decided
In 1904. where q Judgment was reversed on the
application Of the party against whom 1t had been
rendered In the Circuit Court for want Of the allie
CATION of his own citizenship. which he ought
| 10 have made TO establish the Jurisdiction which
he had invoked. This case was cited with approval
| By Chief Justice Marshall In Brown VS.. Keene,
| 8 Pet, ll2.
III JdCkSOu vs. ASHTON fct, lfs, tuc COurt ltSclI
raised and insisted on the point OF Jurisdiction in
the Circuit Court; and In that Il expressly
ruled that because 1t did not appear that the Cir
cult Court had Jurisdiction, this court appeal.
had no jurisdiction except for the purpose OF re
verslng the decree appealed from that ground.
| And In the most recent utterance OF this court
! upon the point In Bors VS.. Preston. It was said by
Mr.. Justice Harlan "ln cases OF which the Circuit
Courts may take cognzance only by reason OF tho
citizenship of the parties this court Its decisions
IDdI haa sneclnl sfanc
| declined 10 express any opinion upon the merits
on appeal or writ OF error. where the record does
| not affirmatively show jurisdiction In the court
below; this because the courts OF the Union, being
courts OF limited jurisdiction, the presumption Is
in every stage OF the cause that 1t is without their
Jurisdiction unless the contrary appears from the
| record"
| 1t would seem that II anything can be
settled II is that the Federal courts can acquire
| no jurisdiction except by definite bestowal
| In an act of Congress.
| 1t ought to make Congressman pause when
| they reflect that nobody is opposing the
| passage of the bill 1t may be because the
| parties who will be affected do not fear il,
| either because they know its enforcement is
| absolutely impracticabe or 1t may be be-
| cause of the decisions which l quote and
| others,
venture TO predict that the only persons
who will derive dollars worth of advantage
from the bill are the members Of the bar.
That any tribunal OF the Government can
dispose Of the business before it If the pro-
visions Of the bill are carried Is impossible.
The taking Of testimony in a relatively simple
equity cause will under ordinary conditions
take from one to two years, supposng that
500 complaints were filed against single
| carrier. in which complaints substantially the
! same witnesses must be called: even allowing
| for the number Of cases which might be tried
| on the same facts, how long will it be before
| the end Of the cases Is reached, and what
| time will the railroad people have to attend
| to the business for which they are paid?
| Multiply this situation by the number OF
| railroads In the country. and ina gine tho
| docket Of the court!
The Supreme Court Of the United States
| really tries. perhaps. 800 cases in a year
| Though more are disposed of), and 1t Is always
| couple OF years behind its work. With
single tribunal trying cases from all over the
| United States. assuming that the men COM
| posing it are of the highest class 1t is possible
| to get. and that they work with the utmost
| attanabe human industry every hour of the
| twenty-four. every person connected with
the cases will be like Imperial Cesar, dead
| and turned to clay" before their end is
| raached