Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/164/436.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:38:44+00:00

Document:
Geo. F. Edmunds and J. M. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.
The appellate jurisdiction of this court rests on the acts of congress, and the question is whether we have jurisdiction to review on writ of error a judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia in a criminal case under section 8 of the act of February 9, 1893, establishing that court (27 Stat. 434, c. 74). And the proper construction of that section is to be arrived at in the light of previous decisions in respect of similar statutory provisions conferring appellate jurisdiction.
The section, as thus construed, was carried forward in the subsequent legislation on the subject, which is referred to at length and considered in cases bereafter cited, and need not be again reviewed.
'Section 1. That no appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or in the supreme court of any of the territories of the United States, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.
'Sec. 2. That the preceding section shall not apply to any case wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States; but in all such cases an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute.' [164 U.S. 436, 448] We have decided that this court has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of error to review the judgments of the supreme court of the District of Columbia in criminal cases, either under the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 826, c. 517; In re Heath, 144 U.S. 92 , 12 Sup. Ct. 615), or under the act of February 6, 1889 (25 Stat. 599, c. 15; Cross v. U. S., 145 U.S. 571 , 12 Sup. Ct. 842), or on habeas corpus (Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 82 , 13 Sup. Ct. 22). And, although the validity of any patent or copyright, or of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, was not drawn in question in those cases, it was distinctly ruled, in reaching the conclusions announced, that neither of the sections of the act of March 3, 1885, applied to any criminal case; and Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U.S. 104 , 9 Sup. Ct. 253, U. S. v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310 , 12 Sup. Ct. 609, and U. S. v. More, 3 Cranch, 159, were cited with approval. Cross v. U. S., 145 U.S. 574 , 12 Sup. Ct. 842; Cross v. Burke, 146 U.S. 87 , 13 Sup. Ct. 22.
In Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, in which it was claimed that the validity of an authority exercised under the United States was drawn in question, it was held that the second section of the act did not extend to criminal cases, but that both sections applied to cases where there was a matter in dispute measurably by some sum or value in money. The view taken was that the second section contained an exception or limitation carved out of the first section, and that the words, that in the enumerated cases, 'an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute,' clearly implied that in those cases, also, there must be a pecuniary matter in dispute, measurable by some sum or value, though not restricted in amount.
Watts v. Territory of Washington, 91 U.S. 580 , decided at October term, 1875, is cited as sustaining a different construction, but the point of decision there was that it nowhere appeared that the constitution or any statute or treaty of the United States was in any manner drawn in question, and the broad language of the opinion was plainly obiter, as pointed out in Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana.
It is contended that the words 'and also,' as used in the section under consideration, are words 'of legal art,' of 'almost immemorially precise and technical meaning,' and import [164 U.S. 436, 451] not a restriction of matter previously stated, but a transition from what had been previously declared to a new and independent subject intended to stand by itself.
We do not care to go into the struggle between the courts of king's bench and common pleas on the question of the jurisdiction of the former over civil actions, which led to the curious device of the ac etiam, more particularly to avoid the effect of 13 Car. II. St. 2, c. 2. It was invented in order to couple, with a cause of action over which the court of king's bench had jurisdiction, another cause of action, over which, without being joined with the first, the court would not have had jurisdiction. 2 Sell. Prac. Append. 625, 630; Burges, Insolv. 135, 149.
We are unable to conclude that congress, which might easily have conferred jurisdiction in plain and explicit language, resorted to this ancient contrivance to effect it.
The argument is pressed that, as, by section 5 of the judiciary act of 1891, cases of conviction of capital or otherwise ifamous crimes, cases involving the construction or application of the constitution of the United States, or cases in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States is drawn in question, can be brought to this court directly from the district and circuit courts of the United States, therefore this section should be construed as giving the same right of review in the District of Columbia.
But we think the section too plain to admit of this. No mention of the courts of the District of Columbia is made in the act of March 3, 1891, and there is nothing in the eighth section to justify its expansion so as to embrace the provisions of that act. In re Heath, 144 U.S. 92, 96 , 12 S. Sup. Ct. 615, 616.
The writ of error was granted by the court of appeals in this case with reluctance, as appears from the opinion of Chief Justice Alvey, in passing upon the application therefor, given in the record, and out of deference to the supposed intimation in Re Chapman, 156 U.S. 211 , 15 Sup. Ct. 331, and in Re Belt, 159 U.S. 95 , 15 Sup. Ct. 987, that it might lie. It is quite possible that the language used in the opinions in those cases was somewhat too cautiously worded, but it was with the purpose, as the question was not [164 U.S. 436, 452] raised for decision, of avoiding, rather than expressing, any views upon it.
We are of opinion that the writ of error cannot be maintained. Writ of error dismissed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.