case, or it may require that the whole record and cause may be sent up to it for its consideration, and thereupon shall decide the whole matter in controversy in the manner as if it had been brought there for review by writ of error or appeal.143 In any case made final in the circuit of appeals, the Supreme Court may require, by certiorari or otherwise, any such case to be certified. to the Supreme Court for its review and determination with the same power and authority in the case as if it had been carried by appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court.14* Appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district or circuit courts to the proper circuit court of appeals in cases of conviction of an infamous crime not capital.145 The circuit courts of appeal have the same appellate jurisdiction by writ of error or appeal over the judgments and decrees of the courts of Territories as they have over the judgments and decrees of the district and circuit courts.146 This provision also applied to the appellate courts of the Indian Territory, which is assigned to the Eighth judicial circuit.147 The circuit courts of appeal also have ap 143 13 20 U. S. Stats. 828, Sec. VI., Cl. 1. See Dower v. Richards, 151 U. S. 658; United States v. Timsley, 25 U. S. App. 266, 73 Fed. Rep. 369; Ries v. Henderson, 42 U. S. App. 760; 78 Fed. Rep. 515; Isaacs v. United States, 159 U. S. 487; Reagan v. United States, 157 U. S. 301; Blitz v. United States, 153 U. S. 308; United States v. Fowkes, 3 U. S. App. 247, 53 Fed. nep. 13; Ն nited States v. Coudert, 38 U. S. App. 515, 73 Fed. Rep. 505; Press Pub. Co. v. Monroe, 164 U. S. 105; Rouse v. Letcher, 156 U. S. 47; Hubbard v. Soby, 146 U. S. 56; United States v. American Bell Tel. Co., 159 U. S. 548; unt v. United States, 166 U. S. 424; Columbus Watch Co. v. Robbins, 148 U. S. 266. 144 26 U. S. Stats. 828, Sec. VI., Cl. II. See Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506; United States v. Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1; American Const. Co. v. Jacksonville, etc., Ry Co., 148 U. S. 372; Panama Ry. Co. v. Napier Shipping Co., 166 U. S. 280. 145 29 U. S. Stats. 492. See Stoke v. United States, 23 u. S. App. 289; 60 Fed. Rep. 597. 148 and pellate jurisdiction in various bankruptcy proceedings,1 from interlocutory orders relative to injunctions.149 § 218. Appeals from circuit court of appeals to supreme court. In all cases not expressly made final in the circuit court of appeals there is of right an appeal or writ of error or review of the case by the Supreme Court of the United States, where the matter in controversy shall exceed one thousand dollars besides costs. But no such appeal shall be taken or writ of error sued out unless within one year from the entry of the order, judgment or decree sought to be reviewed.150 § 219. Appeals directly from district and circuit courts to the supreme court.-Appeals or writs of error may be taken from the district or circuit courts directly to the Supreme Court in the following cases: In any case in which the jurisdiction of the court is in issue; in such cases the question of jurisdiction alone shall be certified to the Supreme Court from the court below for decision. From the final sentences and decrees in prize cases. In cases of conviction of a capital crime. In any case that involves the construction or application of the Constitution of the United States. In any case in which the constitutionality of any law of the United States, or the validity or construction of any treaty made under its authority, is drawn in question. In any case in which the constitution or law of a State is claimed to be in contravention of the Constitution of the United States.15 151 148 See 30 U. S. Stats. 553, Secs. XXIV. and XXV. 149 See 26 U. S. Stats. 828, Sec. VII., as amended, 28 U. S. Stats. 666; Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co., 43 U. S. App. 47, 72 Fed. Rep. 545; Maiden v. Campbell Printing Press & Mfg. Co., 38 U. S. App. 123, 67 Fed. Rep. 809. 150 26 U. S. Stats. 828, Sec. VI., CI. III. See McLeod v. Graven, 47 U. S. App. 573, 79 Fed. Rep. 84; United States v. Wanamaker, 147 U. S. 149; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Gentry, 163 U. S. 363; Voorhees v. Noye Mfg. Co., 151 U. S. 135. 151 Act of March 3, 1891 Stats. 827, Sec. V.; as amended, 29 U. S. Stats. 492. See Mason v. Pewalic Min. Co., 153 U. S. 361; Nashua & L. R. Corp. v. Boston & Lan. R. Corp., 5 U. S. App. 97, 51 Fed. Rep. 929; Rust v. United Waterworks Co., 36 I. S. App. 167; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. John § 220. Appeals from territorial courts to supreme court.Appeals and writs of error lie from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia and from the supreme courts of any of the Territories of the United States, to the Supreme Court of the United States, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, or where there is involved in the cause the validity of any patent or copyright, or where is drawn in question the validity of any treaty or statute of the United States.152 $221. Appeals from the court of claims to supreme court. -An appeal to the Supreme Court is allowed on behalf of the · United States, from all judgments of the Court of Claims adverse to the United States, and on behalf of the plaintiff in any case where the amount in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or where his claim is forfeited to the United States by the judgment of said court.153 § 222. Appeals from State courts to the supreme court.— A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit can be had, where is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity, or of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any State on the ground of their being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity, or where any title, right, privilege or immunity is claimed under the Constitution, or any treaty or statute of, or commission held or authority exercised under, the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege or immunity, specially set son, 13 U. S. App. 681, 60 Fed. 152 23 U. S. Stats. 355. See Lownsdale v. Parrish, 21 Howard, 290; Potts v. Chumasero, 92 U. S. 358; Brewster v. Wakefield, 22 Howard, 118; Gonzales v. Cunningham, 164 U. S. 612. 153 Rev. Stats., Sec. 707. See Ex parte Atocha, 17 Wallace, 439; Ex parte Russell, 13 Wallace, 664; United States v. Jones, 119 U. S. 477; United States v. Gleeson, 124 U. S. 255. apart or claimed by either party, under such Constitution, treaty, statute; commission or authority, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the Supreme Court upon writ of error. The writ has the same effect as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a court of the United States. The Supreme Court may reverse, modify or affirm the judgment or decree of such State court, and may at their discretion, award execution or remand the same to the court from which it was removed by the writ." 154 § 223. Original jurisdiction of the supreme court.-The original jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court is fixed by the Constitution as follows: "In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, 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."155 This is the maximum jurisdiction which can be given to the Supreme Court. The first act of Congress ever declared unconstitutional was one which attempted to give to the Supreme Court original jurisdiction not provided for in the Constitution.156 The words of the Constitution giving original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in certain cases is construed negatively as to all other causes.157 Giving original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court does not of itself exclude original jurisdiction in other courts. Congress may also vest original jurisdiction in such cases in the inferior. Federal courts, or may allow the State courts to take jurisdic tion.158 Congress may, however, exclude altogether the jurisdiction of any State court in any suit against a foreign minister or ambassador, and this has been done in Rev. Stat. U. S., 687. In order for the Supreme Court to have original jurisdiction on account of a State being a party to a suit, the State must be a direct party and not merely consequentially affected.159 The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in a suit brought by the United States against a State.10 160 § 224. Statutory provisions as to original jurisdiction of the supreme court.-Under the existing statutes: 161 The Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies of a civil nature where a State is a party, except between a State and citizens of other States, or aliens, in which latter case it has original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction. And it has exclusively all such jurisdiction of suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, as a court of law can have consistently with the law of nations, and original, but not exclusive, jurisdiction of all suits brought by ambassadors, or other public ministers, or in which a consul or vice-consul is a party." The Supreme Court also has power to issue writs of prohibition to the district courts when proceeding as courts of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and writs of mandamus in cases warranted by the principles and usages of law, to any courts appointed under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States, or to persons holding office under the authority of the United States where a State or an ambassador, or other public minister, or a consul or vice-consul is a party.162 258 United States v. Ravara, 2 Dallas, 297. 159 Fowler v. Lindsay, 3 Dallas, 4.1; New Hampshire v. Louisiana and New York v. Louisiana, 108 U. S. 76. 160 United States v. Texas, 143 U. S. 621. 161 4063-4066. See Ex parte Barry, 2 Howard, 65; Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. S. 265. 162 Rev. Stats., Sec. 688. See In re Elizabeth Engles, 146 U. S. 357; In re Cooper, 143 U. S. 472; United States v. Peters, 3 Dallas, 121; Ex parte Easton, 95 U. S. 68; Ex parte Cutting, 94 U. S. 14; Ex parte Bradley, 7 Wallace, 364; United States v. Addison, 22 Howard, 174. |