thority over its own judgments and proceedings.[1] Nor can any state court, or any state legislature, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, or destroy the rights acquired under them;[2] nor in any manner deprive the Supreme Court of its appellate jurisdiction;[3] nor in any manner interfere with, or control the process (whether mesne or final) of the courts of the United States;[4] nor prescribe the rules or forms of proceeding, nor effect of process, in the courts of the United States;[5] nor issue a mandamus to an officer of the United states, to compel him to perform duties, devolved on him by the laws of the United States.[6] And although writs of habeas corpus have been issued by state judges, and state courts, in cases, where the party has been in custody under the authority of process of the courts of the United States, there has been considerable diversity of opinion, whether such an exercise of authority is constitutional; and it yet remains to be decided, whether it can be maintained.[7]
§ 1752. Indeed, in all cases, where the judicial power of the United States is to be exercised, it is for congress alone to furnish the rules of proceeding, to- ↑ McKim v. Voorhis, 7 Cranch's R. 279; 1 Kent's Corm. Lect. 19, p. 382 to 387, (2 edit. 409 to 412.)
- ↑ United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115; S. C. 2 Peters's Cond. R. 202; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p. 382, &c. (2 edit. p. 409, &c.)
- ↑ Wilson v. Mason, 1 Cranch, 94; S. C. 1 Peters's Cond. R. 242; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p. 382, (2 edit. 409.)
- ↑ United States v. Wilson, 8 Wheat. R. 253.
- ↑ Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. R. 1. 21, 22; Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. R. 51.
- ↑ McClung v. Silliman, 6 Wheat. R. 598.
- ↑ See Sergeant on Const. Law, ch. 27, (ch. 28;) 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 18, p. 375, (2 edit. p. 400.) See 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 291, 292.
vol. iii.79
