Page:Debates in the Several State Conventions, v4.djvu/652

636 party who asserts his rights in the form prescribed by law. It then becomes a case. Ibid.

130. In those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, the judicial power of the United States cannot be exercised in its appellate form. In every other case, the power is to be exercised in its original or appellate form, or both, as the wisdom of Congress may direct. Ibid.

131. With the exception of those cases in which original jurisdiction is given to the Supreme Court, there is none to which the judicial power extends from which the original jurisdiction of the inferior courts is excluded by the Constitution. Ibid.

132. The Constitution establishes the Supreme Court, and defines its jurisdiction. It enumerates cases in which jurisdiction is original and exclusive, and then defines that which is appellate, but does not insinuate that, in any such case, the power cannot be exercised in its original forms by courts of original jurisdiction.

133. The postmaster-general cannot sue in the federal courts under that part of the Constitution which gives jurisdiction to those courts in consequence of the character of the party, nor is he authorized to sue by the judiciary act he comes into the courts of the United States under the authority of an act of Congress, the constitutionality of which rests upon the admission that his suit is a case arising under the law of the United States. Ibid.

134. The clause in the patent law authorizing suits in the Circuit Courts stands on the principle that they are cases arising under a law of the United States. Ibid.

135. Jurisdiction is neither given nor ousted by the relative situation of the parties concerned in interest, but by the relative situation of the parties named on the record; consequently the 11th amendment to the Constitution, which restrains the jurisdiction of the federal courts over suits against states, is limited to those suits in which a state is a party on the record. Ibid. Bank of the United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia. Ibid. 904, S. P.

136. The Circuit Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of a bill in equity, filed by the Bank of the United Stales for the purpose of protecting the bank in the exercise of its franchises, which are threatened with invasion and destruction under an unconstitutional state law; and, as the state itself cannot be made a defendant, it may be maintained against the officers and agents of the state who are appointed to execute such law. Ibid.

137. The act of February 28, 1795, ch. 277, (2 Bior. 479,) to provide for calling out the militia, to execute the laws of the Union, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, is within the constitutional authority of Congress. Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19.

138. The power granted to Congress, by the Constitution, "to establish uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcy throughout the United States," does not exclude the right of the states to legislate on the same subject, except where the power is actually exercised by Congress, and the state laws conflict with those of Congress. Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213.

139. A state bankrupt or insolvent law, which discharges both the person of the debtor and his future acquisitions of property, is not "a law impairing the obligation of contracts" so far as respects debts contracted subsequent to such law. Ibid.

140. But a certificate of discharge under such law cannot be pleaded in bar of an action brought by a citizen of another state in the courts of the United States, or of any other state than that where the discharge was obtained. Ibid.

141. The states have a right to regulate or abolish imprisonment for debt, as a part of the remedy for enforcing the performance of contracts. Mason v. Haile, 12 Wheat. 370.

142. An act of a state legislature, requiring all importers of foreign goods by the bale or package, &c., and other persons selling the same by wholesale, bale or package, &c., to take out a license, for which they shall pay fifty dollars, and in case of neglect or refusal to take out such license, subject them to certain forfeitures and penalties, is repugnant to that provision of the Constitution of the