Page:Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1st ed, 1833, vol III).djvu/632

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
624
CONSTITUTION OF THE U. STATES.
[BOOK III.

§ 1750. In regard to jurisdiction over crimes committed against the authority of the United States, it has been held, that no part of this jurisdiction can, consistently with the constitution, be delegated to state tribunals.[1] It is true, that congress has, in various acts, conferred the right to prosecute for offences, penalties, and forfeitures, in the state courts. But the latter have, in many instances, declined the jurisdiction, and asserted its unconstitutionality. And certainly there is, at the present time, a decided preponderance of judicial authority in the state courts against the authority of congress to confer the power.[2]

§ 1751. In the exercise of the jurisdiction confided respectively to the state courts, and those courts of the United States, (where the latter have not appellate jurisdiction,) it is plain, that neither can have any right to interfere with, or control, the operations of the other. It has accordingly been settled, that no state court can issue an injunction upon any judgment in a court of the United States; the latter having an exclusive au-

    from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour," &c. Are not these judges of the inferior courts the same, in whom the jurisdiction is to be vested? Who are to appoint them? Who are to pay their salaries? Can their compensation be diminished? All these questions must be answered with reference to the same judges, that is, with reference to judges of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, and not of state courts. See also The Federalist, No. 45.

  1. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. R. 337; Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. R. 35, 69, 71, 74, 75.
  2. See Sergeant on Const. Law, ch. 27, (ch. 28;) United States, v. Campbell, 6 Hall's Law Jour. 113; United States v. Lathrop, 17 John. R. 5; Coruth v. Freely, Virginia Cases, 321; Ely v. Peck, 7 Connecticut R. 239; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 18, p. 370, &c. (2 edit. p. 395 to 404.) But see 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 181, 182; Rawle on Const. ch. 21.