Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/227/445/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:05:50+00:00

Document:
Under subd. 5 of § 250 of the Judicial Code of 1911, a final judgment of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia can only he reviewed by this Court in cases where the validity of any authority exercised under the United States, or the existence or scope of any power or duty of any officer of the United States, is drawn in question.
The meaning of the phrase "drawn in question," as it occurs in § 250 of the Judicial Code, is the same as in § 709, Rev.Stat.; § 5 of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act, and other statutes regulating territorial appeals.
A statute of the United States authorizing an officer to act in a certain manner under certain conditions is not drawn in question, nor is the scope or validity of authority of the officer acting thereunder drawn in question, simply because there is a controversy as to whether the specified conditions do or do not exist.
directed to him to issue the patent on the ground that there was no protest does not draw in question the validity or scope of his authority, but only the question of fact as to existence of a protest, and there is no jurisdiction in this Court under § 250 of the Judicial Code to review the judgment.
Writ of error to review 40 Wash. 780 denied.
The facts, which involve the construction of § 250 of the Judicial Code of 1911 and the jurisdiction of this Court to review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, are stated in the opinion.
This is a petition for the allowance of a writ of error to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to review the judgment of that court affirming the judgment of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia dismissing the petition of the Champion Lumber Company against the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office.
"was made for speculative purposes, with no attempt to comply with the requirements of the law, and recommended that the entry be cancelled on the ground of nonresidence, noncultivation, nonimprovement, and abandonment."
Thereupon the Commissioner directed that a hearing be had. The petitioner moved for a stay of proceedings, claimed that, under § 7, supra, the entry should be patented without further proceedings. The motion was denied by the Commissioner, and this denial affirmed by the Secretary of the Interior, who later denied a motion to review his decision, finding that a protest had been filed against the patent of Lucy Johns' homestead entry within two years from the issuance of the receiver's receipt, and holding that the case should proceed to hearing on the special agent's charge.
"Every point advanced by appellant in this case is, in our view, settled by the following very recent decisions: Fisher v. United States, 37 App.D.C. 436; Ness v. Fisher, 223 U. S. 683; McKenzie v. Fisher, 39 App.D.C. 7. In Fisher v. United States, which involved the interpretation of the very statute upon which appellant here relies, this Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Van Orsdel, said:"
power resides nowhere in our system of government, and while the supervisory authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office over the disposition of the public lands is neither unlimited nor arbitrary, yet the question here presented as to whether or not the communication and order amounted to a protest, which we regard as exceedingly close, was one clearly within the power of the Commissioner to decide. To say that he was mistaken would require us to review a matter exclusively confided by law to his discretion and judgment. This proceeding will not admit of such a review."
"The communications of Special Agent Hammer respecting this entry were made within the two years contemplated by said Act of March 3, 1891, as was the communication of June 18, 1904, from the Commissioner to said agent. It is apparent that these communications resulted in the withholding of a patent -- in other words, that the Commissioner regarded the right to that patent as dependent upon the outcome of the investigation which was to ensue. The subsequent decision of the Secretary that what was done within the two-year period constituted a protest against the patenting of the entry was not arbitrary or capricious, but was based upon evidence, and the sufficiency of that evidence was for his, and not our, determination."
scope of any power or duty of an officer of the United States, is drawn in question."
The case, therefore, to be appealable to this Court from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, must be one in which the validity of the authority exercised or the existence or scope of the authority of the officer named is drawn in question.
"Drawn in question" is a phrase long used in other statutes of the United States regulating appellate jurisdiction. It is found in § 709 of the Revised Statutes, governing appeals from state courts to this Court. It is in the fifth section of the Circuit Court of Appeals Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 826, 828, c. 517). It is in the statute regulating territorial appeals (March 3, 1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355). The meaning of this phrase has been the subject of frequent consideration in this Court, and it is unnecessary to review the numerous cases in which it has been interpreted.
"some right, title, privilege, or immunity dependent on the treaty must be so set up or claimed as to require the circuit court to pass on the question of validity or construction in disposing of the right asserted."
treaty was held to be drawn in question where the petition for a writ of habeas corpus and the warrant under which the accused was arrested referred to the treaty, and the court below proceeded on the ground that the determination of the part upon the meaning of certain provisions part upon the meaning of certain provisions of that treaty, these provisions having been duly brought to the attention of the court. It has also been held that the validity of a statute of the United States or authority exercised thereunder is drawn in question when the existence or constitutionality or legality of such law is denied and the denial forms the subject of direct inquiry in the case. United States v. Lynch, 137 U. S. 280; Linford v. Ellison, 155 U. S. 503; Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 118 U. S. 353; McLean v. R. Co., 203 U. S. 38.
used in the statute -- that is, brought forward and made a ground of decision. The statutes under which the officers of the United States acted were concededly valid, and the authority exerted was lawful and within the powers of the officers, if the facts justified their action. The petitioner's real attack upon the action of the Secretary and Commissioner was because the facts shown did not warrant the exercise of the power given by law. The decision of that issue, upon which it is clear the case turned, neither involved nor decided the questions which make the case appealable to this Court under the fifth clause of § 250 of the Judicial Code.

References: § 250
 § 250
 § 709
 § 5
 § 250
 § 250
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 709
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 250