Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Controlling Effect of Decisions. be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformable to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformable to the Constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case: this is of the very essence of judicial duty. If then, the courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. (P. 177.) In Fairbank v. U. S. (181 U. S. 283) it was said that this judicial duty of upholding the provisions of the Constitution as against any legislation conflicting therewith has become now an accepted fact in the judicial life of this nation. This case involved an act of Congress imposing a stamp tax on foreign bills of lading, which was held to be in conflict with Article I, section 9, of the Constitution, that "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." In the dissenting opinion of Justice Harlan (concurred in by Justices Gray, White, and McKenna) it was said: Practically no weight has been given in the opinion just filed to the fact that the power now denied to Congress has been exercised since the organization of the Government without any suggestion or even intimation by a single jurist or statesman during all that period that the Constitution forbade its exercise. The court has no veto power on legislation enacted by Congress, and its right to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional can only be exercised when a proper case between opposing parties is submitted for determination. Muskrat v. U. S., 219 U. S. 346. In Halter v. Nebraska (205 U. S. 34) the court said: "We must not overlook certain principles of constitutional construction, long ago established and steadily adhered to, which preclude a judicial tribunal from holding a legislative enactment, Federal or State, unconstitutional and void, unless it is manifestly so." In Pollock v. Farmers' Loan, etc., Co. (157 U. S. 429) it was said that the doctrine of stare decisis is a salutary one, and is to be adhered to on proper occasions in respect of decisions directly upon points in issue; but that the court should not extend any decision upon a constitutional question if it is convinced that error in principle might supervene. The duty of the court in construing a statute includes the duty of avoiding a construction which raises grave and doubtful constitutional questions if the statute can be reasonably construed so as to avoid such questions. U. S. v. Delaware & H. Co., 213 U. S. 366. U, S. v. Jin Fuey Moy, 241 U. S. 394. The Supreme Court will not pass upon the constitutional validity of an act presenting such critical and important issues Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Controlling Effect of Decisions. as those presented by the Industrial Relations Act of Kansas unless the case before the court requires it. Howat v. Kansas, 258 U. S. 181. Where a statute is susceptible of two constructions, by one of which grave and doubtful constitutional questions arise, and by the other of which such questions are avoided, the latter construction should be adopted. Texas v. Eastern Texas R. Co., 258 U. S. 204. Arkansas Gas Co. v. Railroad Comm., 261 U. S. 379. Every act of Congress to be valid must find in the Constitution some warrant for its passage; but while construction, for the purpose of conferring a power, should be resorted to with great caution, yet resort must be had to every reasonable construction to save a statute from unconstitutionality, and a choice of means by Congress is not to be adjudged invalid unless the conflict between the Constitution and the statute is clear and strong. U. S. v. Harris, 106 U. S. 635. Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 657. In Mitchell v. Burlington (4 Wall. 270) it was held that if municipal bonds when issued are valid by the constitution and laws of the State, as expounded by the highest judicial authority whose duty it was to interpret them, they can not be made invalid by subsequent judicial interpretation of an opposite kind. In Cox v. Wood (247 U. S. 3), the court held that relator's claim that he was entitled to his discharge from military service under selective draft act on ground that call to service for which draft was made under act was for duty in foreign country need not be considered as original proposition. The constitutionality of an act is not involved in a case where the plaintiff is not affected by the provisions of the act. Chicago Board of Trade v. Olsen, 262 U. S. 1. Jurisdictional questions.-Where the question of jurisdiction does not appear to have been contested in a previously adjudicated case, the court is not bound by the view expressed therein. Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82. New v. Oklahoma (195 U. S. 252), holding that the Supreme Court will not consider itself bound on the question of its jurisdiction by a prior case in which jurisdiction was entertained without any suggestion as to the want of it. Arant v. Lane (245 U. S. 166), holding that cases in which controversies were determined on certificates of Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, where no question was raised concerning the power to certify held not authoritative on the question as to the power to certify. Res judicata.-A decree of a Federal circuit court in a suit involving rights protected by the Federal Constitution must be Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-Controlling Effect of Decisions. given in the Federal courts the force and effect to which it is entitled under the principles of res judicata as settled by the Federal Supreme Court, though they may differ from the doctrine announced by the courts of the State in which the circuit court was sitting. Gunter v. Atlantic, etc., R. Co., 200 U. S. 273. Legislative policy. It is not within either the disposition or power of this court to revise the necessarily complicated taxing systems of the States for the purpose of attempting to produce what might be thought to be a more just distribution of the burdens of taxation than that arrived at by the State legislatures. Dane v. Jackson, 256 U. S. 598. Legislative declaration of facts, affording ground for rent regulation in the District of Columbia, entitled to great respect. Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135. Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170. Rule of property.-Where the title to land has once been determined by a decision of the Supreme Court, such decision becomes a rule of property and will not be disturbed. Minnesota Co. v. National Co., 3 Wall, 332. Mitchell v. Burlington, 4 Wall. 270. Nadal v. May, 233 U. S. 447. Decisions of Circuit Courts of Appeals A decision by the circuit court of appeals in any circuit, so long as it remains unappealed from, and so long as the Supreme Court has issued no writ of certiorari to reexamine it, is to be regarded as having more effect in other Federal courts than that ordinarily given to those of the highest State tribunals, or other courts of merely concurrent jurisdiction. Beach v. Hobbs, 82 Fed. 916; decree reversed in 92 Fed. 146. See also Smith v. Guffey, 202 Fed. 106; decree reversed in Guffey v. Smith, 237 U. S. 101. Consolidated, etc., Tire Co. v. Diamond Rubber Co., 162 Fed. 892, The Fayerweather Will Cases, 118 Fed. 943; decree affirmed in Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Mfg. Co., 177 U. S. 485. Rock Spring Distilling Co. v. Gaines, 246 U. S. 312. Decisions of District Courts Judges who sit in the same court should not attempt to overrule the decisions of each other, especially on questions involving rules of property and practice, except for the most cogent reasons. Shreve v. Cheesman, 69 Fed. 785. Boatmen's Bank v. Fritzlen, 135 Fed. 650, reversing judgment Weldon v. Fritzlen, 128 Fed. 608, and writ of certiorari denied Fritzlen v. Boatmen's Bank, 198 U. S. 586. See also Hancock Inspirator Co. v. Regester, 35 Fed. 61; appeal dismissed 149 U. S. 775. Sec. 1-Distribution of Judicial Power-Territorial and Provisional Courts. Territorial and Provisional Courts The courts of a Territory, although they derive their jurisdiction from Congress, are not United States courts within the meaning of this section and so do not come within the purview of acts of Congress which treat of "courts of the United States" only. These courts are not constitutional in the sense that the judicial power conferred by the Constitution can be deposited in them. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power defined in this article, but is conferred in the execution of those general powers which Congress possesses over the Territories. The City of Panama, 101 U. S. 460. American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 546. See also McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 282. The fact that the judges of Territorial courts are appointed by the President under act of Congress does not make the courts which they hold courts of the United States. Broadly speaking, however, the Territorial district courts are dual in their nature and sit both as Territorial and Federal courts. Congress may define the jurisdiction of Territorial courts, or delegate the authority to the Territorial government. Clinton v. Englebrecht, 13 Wall. 447. See also McAllister v. U. S., 141 U. S. 174. This article does not make any provision for abnormal conditions in conquered territory nor permit the establishment by Congress of courts in insurrectionary districts. In the performance of the duty of National Government, as a belligerent, to protect persons and property, the President has power, incident. to military occupation, to establish provisional courts at the seat of war; but such courts can not decide cases of prize of war as ordinary courts of admiralty. Mechanics', etc., Bank v. Union Bank, 22 Wall. 296. The Grapeshot, 9 Wall. 132. Lewis v. Cocks, 23 Wall. 469. Jecker v. Montgomery, 13 How. 515. Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 121. In re Vidal, 179 U. S. 126. Civil courts can not review proceedings and sentences of courtsmartial where they are legally organized and have jurisdiction Sec. 1.-Distribution of Judicial Power-State Courts. of the offense and of the person of accused and have complied with the statutory requirements governing their proceedings. Mullan v. U. S., 212 U. S. 516. State Courts In General Courts of the United States and of the States are independent of each other in matters within their respective jurisdictions, the jurisdiction of the State courts not having been affected by the grant of judicial powers to the General Government, except where such jurisdiction would be incompatible with the powers granted to the United States. In some cases the Federal judicial power is necessarily exclusive of all State authority; in others it may be made so at the option of Congress, or it may be exercised concurrently with that of the states. Taylor v. Carryl, 20 How. 597. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275. In Dier v. Banton, 262 U. S. 147, it was held that books and papers in possession of receiver in bankruptcy appointed by Federal court can not be taken by subpoena issuing from State court unless Federal court, exercising its discretion with due regard for comity, consents. Source of Authority Where jurisdiction may be conferred upon Federal courts it may be made exclusive; but if exclusive jurisdiction be neither express nor implied, State courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it. If the jurisdiction of the Federal courts is paramount in certain cases the State courts are prohibited from taking any cognizance of such cases, and all proceedings in a State court are void. Thus a statute authorizing proceedings in a State court in admiralty causes is unconstitutional. Congress can not confer jurisdiction on a State court. Martin v. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 337. Osborn v. Bank, 9 Wheat. 738. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 590. The J. E. Rumbell, 148 U. S. 12. |