direct the process, to declare the nature and effect of the process, and the mode, in which the judgments, consequent thereon, shall be executed. No state legislature, or state court, can have the slightest right to interfere; and congress are not even capable of delegating the right to them. They may authorize national courts to make general rules and orders, for the purpose of a more convenient exercise of their jurisdiction; but they cannot delegate to any state authority any control over the national courts.[1]
§ 1753. On the other hand the national courts have no authority (in cases not within the appellate jurisdiction of the United States) to issue injunctions to judgments in the state courts;[2] or in any other manner to interfere with their jurisdiction or proceedings.[3]
§ 1754. Having disposed of these points, we may again recur to the language of the constitution for the purpose of some farther illustrations. The language is, that "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations, as the congress shall make."
§ 1755. In the first place, it may not be without use to ascertain, what is here meant by appellate jurisdiction; and what is the mode, in which it may be exercised. The essential criterion of appellate jurisdiction is, that it revises and corrects the proceedings in a cause already instituted, and does not create that- ↑ Wayman v. Southard, 10 Wheat. R. 1; Palmer v. Allen, 7 Cranch R. 550; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. R. 217, 208; Bank of the United States v. Halstead, 10 Wheat. R. 51.
- ↑ Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch 178. See 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 15, p. 301, (2 edit. 321.)
- ↑ Ex parte Cabrera, 1 Wash. Cir. R. 232; 1 Kent's Comm. Lect. 19, p.386, (2 edit. p. 411, 412.)
