The existing inferior courts are not tribunals of delegated jurisdiction. They are tribunals, whose jurisdiction is inherent and not assigned.

It is perfectly true, that the clause under consideration was struck out of the draft by an express motion of August 27th.,* but it is also true that it was the sole text mentioning the jurisdiction of the inferior courts and that nothing whatsoever was substituted in its place. Thus it came to pass that the constitution contains no text mentioning the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. The Committee intended that there should be such text, and inserted it in the draft. The convention struck out that text and omitted to insert another on the same subject.

If the omission of such a text was an error, it was a grave one, for it must make much difficulty in understanding the judicial part of the frame of the constitution and structure of the government. If no such error was committed, such difficulty may not exist. But error or no error, the omission was actually made.

The foregoing conclusion as to appeals from the inferior U. S. courts has an important bearing upon the subject of appeals from the state courts. The appellate jurisdiction clause of the constitution mentions the Supreme Court as a tribunal ad quod, but does not mention any tribunals a quibus. The corresponding clause of the draft did likewise, but it was followed by a context relating to the jurisdictions of both the supreme and inferior courts and the relation between the same. This context is expressive of so peculiar a dependency of the inferior courts upon the Supreme Court, that their not being designated as tribunals a quibus in any text must have been a different circumstance according to the draft from what it was and is under the constitution.

When this context was stricken from the draft, the state courts and the inferior courts were put in similar, perhaps in identical, predicaments, as to any consequences resulting from the omission to mention tribunals a quibus in the appellate jurisdiction clause of the new constitution.

The constitution was reported to Congress and submitted * Journal, page 300, line 11.

by it to the several states for ratification or rejection by their respective popular conventions. How could those conventions understand the appellate jurisdiction clause? They would certainly understand it to refer to some tribunals a quibus. In the subsequent commentary upon the text of the appellate jurisdiction clause, it will be contended that it would be natural in them to think that it referred to the existing state courts, as well as to the future inferior courts, as tribunals a quibus.

APPENDICES.

APPENDIX No. 1.

(See Page 5.)

(This appendix was not sufficiently completed by the author, to justify its publication.)

APPENDIX No. 2.
(See Page 123.)

Sacrae Rotae Romanae Decisionum recentiorum a Paulo Rubeo J. C. Romano selectarum, Pars Decima. Ab Anno M.DC. XLVII. usque ad totum Annum M.DC.XLIX.

Venetiis, M.DCC. XVI.

Apud Paulum Balleonium.

Superiorum permissu, ac privilegiis.

Reverendiss. P. D. Cerro, Sacrae Rotae Decano. Romana, seu Januen. Locorum Montium. Veneris 26, Junii 1648.

ARGUMENTUM.

Conditum in Ecclesia testamentum subjaceat ne statuto laicorum circa solemnitates illius. Clerici licèt possint in favorabilibus uti statutis laicorum, in iis tamen, quae in eisdem statutis contra libertatem Ecclesiasticam reperiuntur, uti nullo modo possunt etiam volentes,

SUMMARIUM.

1. Testamentum conditum cum solis quinque testibus est nullum.

2. Teste uno deficiente in testamento corruit testamentum. 3. Immissio conceditur haeredi, qui exhibet testamentum non abolitur, neque in aliqua parte cancellatum. 4. Statutum potest minuere numerum testium in testamento requisitum.

Statutum Januae sub rubr. de testamentis solum

numerum quinque testium exposcit in illis, num. 4. 5. Testamentum conditum in Ecclesia subjaceat ne statuto laicorum circa numerum testium, & num. seqq.

6. Statutum requirens majores solemnitates, quàm requirantur de jure civili in testamentis, dicitur odio

sum.

Statutum dicitur favorabile, si solemnitates juris civilis in testamento diminuit, num. 6.

8. Statutum contra libertatem Ecclesiasticam est ipso jure nullum, & num. 16.

9. Statutum etiam Clericis, & Ecclesiae favorabile, conditum à laicis est ipso jure nullum.

10. Statutum laicale ut nullius sit roboris, & momenti, sufficit, quod etiam virtualiter, & indirectè ericos tangat, & laedat.

11. Laici non possunt neque directè, neque indirectè de personis Ecclesiasticis, eorumque bonis disponere. 12. Clerici uti possunt per modum privilegii statutis laicorum in quantum faciunt pro se ipsis, & non acceptare sed reiicere id, quod facit contra se.

13. Clericus utens statutis laicorum, cogitur eis uti cum omnibus suis qualitatibus.

Limita, ut num. seqq.

14. Conditiones, & qualitates ubi sunt diversae, & separatae ex acceptatione unius, non cogitur quis acceptare alias.

17. Clericus licèt acceptar possit statutum in favorabili bus, quatenus tamen facit contra se, etiam volens acceptare non potest.