按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
。
＇Footnote g： As for instance； all cases of piracy。＇
The Constitution comprises under one head almost all the cases which by their very nature come within the limits of the Federal courts。 The rule which it lays down is simple； but pregnant with an entire system of ideas； and with a vast multitude of facts。 It declares that the judicial power of the Supreme Court shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the laws of the United States。
Two examples will put the intention of the legislator in the clearest light：
The Constitution prohibits the States from making laws on the value and circulation of money： If； notwithstanding this prohibition； a State passes a law of this kind； with which the interested parties refuse to comply because it is contrary to the Constitution； the case must come before a Federal court； because it arises under the laws of the United States。 Again； if difficulties arise in the levying of import duties which have been voted by Congress； the Federal court must decide the case； because it arises under the interpretation of a law of the United States。
This rule is in perfect accordance with the fundamental principles of the Federal Constitution。 The Union； as it was established in 1789； possesses； it is true； a limited supremacy； but it was intended that within its limits it should form one and the same people。 *h Within those limits the Union is sovereign。 When this point is established and admitted； the inference is easy； for if it be acknowledged that the United States constitute one and the same people within the bounds prescribed by their Constitution； it is impossible to refuse them the rights which belong to other nations。 But it has been allowed； from the origin of society； that every nation has the right of deciding by its own courts those questions which concern the execution of its own laws。 To this it is answered that the Union is in so singular a position that in relation to some matters it constitutes a people； and that in relation to all the rest it is a nonentity。 But the inference to be drawn is； that in the laws relating to these matters the Union possesses all the rights of absolute sovereignty。 The difficulty is to know what these matters are； and when once it is resolved （and we have shown how it was resolved； in speaking of the means of determining the jurisdiction of the Federal courts） no further doubt can arise； for as soon as it is established that a suit is Federal … that is to say； that it belongs to the share of sovereignty reserved by the Constitution of the Union … the natural consequence is that it should come within the jurisdiction of a Federal court。
＇Footnote h： This principle was in some measure restricted by the introduction of the several States as independent powers into the Senate； and by allowing them to vote separately in the House of Representatives when the President is elected by that body。 But these are exceptions； and the contrary principle is the rule。＇
Whenever the laws of the United States are attacked； or whenever they are resorted to in self…defence； the Federal courts must be appealed to。 Thus the jurisdiction of the tribunals of the Union extends and narrows its limits exactly in the same ratio as the sovereignty of the Union augments or decreases。 We have shown that the principal aim of the legislators of 1789 was to divide the sovereign authority into two parts。 In the one they placed the control of all the general interests of the Union； in the other the control of the special interests of its component States。 Their chief solicitude was to arm the Federal Government with sufficient power to enable it to resist； within its sphere； the encroachments of the several States。 As for these communities； the principle of independence within certain limits of their own was adopted in their behalf； and they were concealed from the inspection； and protected from the control； of the central Government。 In speaking of the division of authority； I observed that this latter principle had not always been held sacred； since the States are prevented from passing certain laws which apparently belong to their own particular sphere of interest。 When a State of the Union passes a law of this kind； the citizens who are injured by its execution can appeal to the Federal courts。
Thus the jurisdiction of the Federal courts extends not only to all the cases which arise under the laws of the Union； but also to those which arise under laws made by the several States in opposition to the Constitution。 The States are prohibited from making ex post facto laws in criminal cases； and any person condemned by virtue of a law of this kind can appeal to the judicial power of the Union。 The States are likewise prohibited from making laws which may have a tendency to impair the obligations of contracts。 *i If a citizen thinks that an obligation of this kind is impaired by a law passed in his State； he may refuse to obey it； and may appeal to the Federal courts。 *j
＇Footnote i： It is perfectly clear； says Mr。 Story （〃Commentaries；〃 p。 503； or in the large edition Section 1379）； that any law which enlarges； abridges； or in any manner changes the intention of the parties； resulting from the stipulations in the contract； necessarily impairs it。 He gives in the same place a very long and careful definition of what is understood by a contract in Federal jurisprudence。 A grant made by the State to a private individual； and accepted by him； is a contract； and cannot be revoked by any future law。 A charter granted by the State to a company is a contract； and equally binding to the State as to the grantee。 The clause of the Constitution here referred to insures； therefore； the existence of a great part of acquired rights； but not of all。 Property may legally be held； though it may not have passed into the possessor's hands by means of a contract； and its possession is an acquired right； not guaranteed by the Federal Constitution。＇
＇Footnote j： A remarkable instance of this is given by Mr。 Story （p。 508； or in the large edition Section 1388）： 〃Dartmouth College in New Hampshire had been founded by a charter granted to certain individuals before the American Revolution； and its trustees formed a corporation under this charter。 The legislature of New Hampshire had； without the consent of this corporation； passed an act changing the organization of the original provincial charter of the college； and transferring all the rights； privileges； and franchises from the old charter trustees to new trustees appointed under the act。 The constitutionality of the act was contested； and； after solemn arguments； it was deliberately held by the Supreme Court that the provincial charter was a contract within the meaning of the Constitution （Art。 I。 Section 10）； and that the emendatory act was utterly void； as impairing the obligation of that charter。 The college was deemed； like other colleges of private foundation； to be a private eleemosynary institution； endowed by its charter with a capacity to take property unconnected with the Government。 Its funds were bestowed upon the faith of the charter； and those funds consisted entirely of private donatio