622
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.
controversies between a state and citizens of another state; and in controversies between a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects.[1] And it is only in those cases, where, previous to the constitution, state tribunals possessed jurisdiction, independent of national authority, that they can now constitutionally exercise a concurrent jurisdiction.[2] Congress, indeed, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, (ch. 20, §§ 9, 11, 13,) have manifestly legislated upon the supposition, that, in all cases, to which the judicial power of the United States extends, they might rightfully vest exclusive jurisdiction in their own courts.[3]
§ 1749. It is a far more difficult point, to affirm the right of congress to vest in any state court any part of the judicial power confided by the constitution to the national government. Congress may, indeed, permit the state courts to exercise a concurrent jurisdiction in many cases; but those courts then derive no authority from congress over the subject-matter, but are simply left to the exercise of such jurisdiction, as is conferred on them by the state constitu-- ↑ See 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 181, 182, 183; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 18, p. 370, &c. (2 edit. p. 395 to 404.)
- ↑ Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. R. 336, 337; The Federalist, No. 27, No. 82; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 49.
- ↑ Id. See 1 Peters's Sup. Ct. R. 128, 129, 130, per Johnson J.; Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. Cir. R. 232.—It would seem, upon the common principles of the laws of nations, as ships of war of a government are deemed to be under the exclusive dominion and sovereignty of their own government, wherever they may be, and thus enjoy an extra territorial immunity, that crimes committed on board of ships of war of the United States, in port, as well as at sea, are exclusively cognizable, and punishable by the United States. The very point arose in United States v. Bevans, (3 Wheat. R. 336, 388); but it was not decided. The result of that trial, however, showed the general opinion, that the state courts had no jurisdiction; as the law officers of the state declined to interfere, after the decision in the Supreme Court of the United States.
