CH. XXXVIII.]
JUDICIARY—JURISDICTION.
651
The amount of the observations hitherto made on the authority of the judicial department is this:—That it has been carefully restricted to those causes, which are manifestly proper for the cognizance of the national judicature; that, in the partition of this authority, a very small portion of original jurisdiction has been reserved to the Supreme Court, and the rest consigned to the subordinate tribunals; that the Supreme Court will possess an appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, in all the cases referred to them, but subject to any exceptions and regulations, which may be thought advisable; that this appellate jurisdiction does, in no case, abolish the trial by jury; and that an ordinary degree of prudence and integrity in the national councils, will ensure us solid advantages from the establishment of the proposed judiciary, without exposing us to any of the inconveniences, which have been predicted from that source.[1]
§ 1771. The functions of the judges of the courts of the United States are strictly and exclusively judicial. They cannot, therefore, be called upon to advise the president in any executive measures; or to give extrajudicial interpretations of law; or to act, as commissioners in cases of pensions, or other like proceedings.[2]
- ↑ The Federalist, No. 81. See on the Judiciary the Journal of Convention, p. 98, 99, 100, 188, 189, 295, 301.
- ↑ 5 Marshall's Life of Washington, ch. 6, p. 433, 441; Sergeant on Const. ch. 29, p. 363, (2 edit. ch. 31, p. 375); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 171; Dewhurst v. Coulthart, 3 Dall. R. 409; Hayburn's Case, 2 Dall. R. 409, 410, and note id., and p. 411; Sergeant on Const. ch. 33, p. 391, (ch. 34, p. 401, 2d edition.)
