. Powers of the American people, Congress, President, and courts, according to evolution of constitutional construction. rosecutionagainst him. Mr. Justice Wilson and the district judgeconcurred in overruling this objection. They were ofthe opinion that although the Constitution invested theSupreme Court with original jurisdiction, in cases affect-ing consuls, it was competent for Congress to confer con-current jurisdiction, in those cases, upon such inferiorcourts as might by law be established. The indictmentwas sustained, and the defendant, upon the final trial,at which Chief Justice Jay pr
. Powers of the American people, Congress, President, and courts, according to evolution of constitutional construction. rosecutionagainst him. Mr. Justice Wilson and the district judgeconcurred in overruling this objection. They were ofthe opinion that although the Constitution invested theSupreme Court with original jurisdiction, in cases affect-ing consuls, it was competent for Congress to confer con-current jurisdiction, in those cases, upon such inferiorcourts as might by law be established. The indictmentwas sustained, and the defendant, upon the final trial,at which Chief Justice Jay presided, was found was subsequently pardoned on condition that hewould surrender his commission and exequatur. United States against Ortega,* which was a criminalprosecution in a circuit court of the United States, forthe offence of offering personal violence to a public min-ister, contrary to the law of nations and the act of Con-gress, one of the questions certified for decision waswhether the jurisdiction conferred by the Constitutionupon the Supreme Court, in cases affecting ambassadors^ II Wheat. THE COURTS. 157 or other public ministers and consuls, was not only orig-inal but exclusiye of the circuit courts. But its decis-ion was waived and the case determined upon anotherground. Of that case it was remarked by Chief Jus-tice Taney/ that an expression of opinion upon thatquestion would not have been waived had the court re-garded it as settled by previous decisions. In Graham v. Stucken Mr. Justice Nelson said thatit could hardly have been the intention of the statesmenwho framed our Constitution to require that one of ourcitizens who had a petty claim of even less than fivedollars against another citizen, who had been clothed bysome foreign government with the consular office, shouldbe compelled to go into the Supreme Court to have a jurysummoned in order to enable him to recover it; norcould it have been intended that the time of that court,,with all its
Size: 1268px × 1971px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bo, bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, booksubjectconstitutionallaw
