JURISDICTION includes both the right to exercise authority (imperium) and the field within which such authority may properly be exercised (dominium), whether its limits be territorial or personal. In early law, jurisdic tion in the second sense was rather personal than territorial, and the same must be true wherever distinct races occupy together the same territory. While the tendency is to grad ually work out a system of law applicable to all inhabitants, the state must of necessity recognize the fact that its subjects of different races will consent to be governed only by sep arate and often contrasting systems. Such is the case, for example, in British India to-day. So, too, jurisdiction was divided according to the subject matter, and the Church secured and jealously maintained authority over all matters of conscience, and managed to extend the juris diction of the Ecclesiastical Courts to very im portant questions, including marriage, legiti macy, wills and administrations, and to actions affecting the personal rights of the clergy.
The Constitution of the United States dis criminates clearly and sharply between the ex ecutive, the legislative and the judicial powers of government, and its provision that the Con stitution and the laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, taken in connection with the pro vision that the judicial power shall extend to all cases under the Constitution, forms the basis of a Jurisdiction which, at least in the extent to which it has been carried, is without precedent outside of the United States. It is by virtue of these provisions that the Federal courts exercise the power of declaring void acts of Congress or of the State legislatures which conflict with the Constitution of the United States. To this power and the energy and ability of the Supreme Court in its exercise are due the vigor and efficiency of the Federal government and the establishment of its su premacy within the field of its jurisdiction. This feature has been imitated in the several State constitutions with results unquestionably beneficial as a whole, and so important that the courts have come to be spoken of as the guard ians of the constitution. But one result not so fortunate is that the legislative branch of the government, though in theory as much bound by constitutional restrictions as though there were no authority to which an appeal againit the validity of its enactments can be taken, is manifesting a disposition to disregard them altogether, leaving the whole question of con stitutionality to the courts. As our system of government provides no method by which the question can be raised, except in, the course of a litigation in which one party relies upon the right conferred by such a statute, there are possibly many unconstitutional acts in force in the various States. A more important consider
ation is that a disposition on the part of the judiciary to interfere with matters properly legislative may thus be created, and lead to forced constructions by which any law which the judges believe to be bad is held obnoxious to the Constitution — resulting in illogical and inconsistent decisions and a weakening of the authority of the courts.
The Constitution provides that the judicial power of the United States shall extend to controversies °between citizens of different States.° The purpose was to open the way for legislation which would provide a tribunal in which the right of a citizen of any State to pursue his legal remedies could not be de nied; probably, too, to afford him a tribunal less likely to be affected by local prejudice than a State tribunal of first instance, probably a County Court. It is not contended that any thing further was designed, but upon this clause depends the most extensive and, except for the provision as to constitutional interpretation which we have just considered, the most im portant body of Federal decisions. The tend ency of the Supreme Court was at first to hold that the Federal court should administer the law of the State in which it was sitting and that while a citizen of Pennsylvania, for exam ple, having a claim against a citizen of New York, might, if he saw fit, bring his action in the Federal, rather than in the State, court — the law to be applied would be the law of the State of New York. But this rule has been departed from in the later decisions, and while the Federal courts still hold themselves bound to follow the interpretation put upon State statutes by the State courts (unless, of course such statutes are attacked as in conflict with the Constitution of the United States), they hold themselves free to disregard the interpretation of the common law by the State courts, and the system of law built up within the State by the adjudications of its courts, and to adopt their own interpreta tion, and follow their own judgment. That the Federal courts are popular is shown by the fact that the most important litigation, estimated on the basis of the amount at stake is, where pos sible, usually brought before them, notably pro ceedings against corporations and especially the foreclosure of corporation mortgages where it is quite common for the trustee for the bond holders to be a corporation or individual of an other State, or where a committee of bond holders, or even a single bondholder, residing outside the State which is the domicile of the debtor corporation, is the plaintiff. This is sufficient to give jurisdiction to the Federal court.