As respects criminal proceedings, the courts of each jurisdiction generally confine them selves to the administration of the laws of the government which created them. In civil cases, however, as the constitution has conferred jurisdiction upon the federal courts in cases, for example, where a citizen of one state sues a citizen of another state, it is manifest that the court which tries such a case must administer the laws of the state in which the action is brought, subject to the constitution and laws of the United States and treaties in cases which conflict with its provisions.
In the organization of the federal system of courts, there were two objects to be ac complished. The first was to prevent a clashing between the state and United States courts, by imposing restrictions upon the United States courts. The second was to carry out the mandates of the constitution, by clothing the latter with all the powers necessary to execute its provisions. This or ganization was commenced by the act of 1789, familiarly known as the Judiciary Act.
To accomplish the first object, the right to issue writs of habeas corpus was by the fourteenth section limited to cases arising under the federal constitution and laws; R. S. § 753. See HABEAS CORPUS. As it there appears, the right of appeal to the supreme court from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus or the discharge of a person impris oned was ahsolute and, it being considered that this led to some abuse in the way of frivolous appeals, particularly in cases of persons condemned to death under criminal prosecutions in the state courts, an act was passed March 10, 1908, providing that no ap peal to the supreme court should be allowed "unless the United States court by which the final decision was rendered or a justice of the supreme court shall be of the opinion that there exists probable cause for an ap peal, in which event, on allowing the same, the said court or justice shall certify that there is probable cause for such allowance"; 35 Stat. L. 40, U. S. Comp, Stat. (Supp. 1911) 255.
This important restriction was intended to leave to the state authorities the absolpte and exclusive administration of the state laws in all cases of imprisonment ; and no instance has ever occurred in which this act has been disregarded. On the contrary, its observance has been emphatically enjoined and enforced ; Ableman v. Booth, 21 How. (U. S.) 523, 16 L. Ed. 169.
The jurisdiction of the supreme court de pends upon the federal constitution, that of the circuit [district] court upon the act of Congress; Ex parte Wisner, 203 U. S. 449,
27 Sup. Ct. 150, 51 L. Ed. 264. The motive of a citizen who prosecutes a cause of action against another in a federal court, in the absence of fraud and collusion, is immaterial ; Chicago v. Mills, 204 U. S. 321, 27 Sup. Gt. 286, 51 L. Ed. 504. And when the circuit court dismisses a case under sec. 1 of the act of Aug. 13, 1888, because not substan tially involving the requisite amount in con troversy, the order of the court, in this case without a jury, is subject to review in the supreme court in respect to rulings of law and findings of fact upon the evidence; Smithers v. Smith, 204 U. S. 632, 27 Sup. Ct. 297, 51 L. Ed. 656.
The jurisdiction of the federal courts is conferred by the constitution and the laws of Congress and cannot be defeated or im paired by the laws of a state. If a suit, when viewed in the light of recognized prin ciples of jurisprudence, appears to be a suit of a civil nature at common law or in equity, it is immaterial if, by a local statute, exclu sive cognizance has been in terms reserved to the courts of the state generally or to some specially designated local tribunal ; Spencer v. Watkins, 169 Fed. 379, 94 C. C. A. 659.
The Judicial Code, enacted March 3, 1911, in effect January 1, 1912, divides the United States into districts (§§ 69-115).
By section 1, a district judge is appointed for each district except that in the northern districts of California and Illinois, districts of Minnesota, Nebraska, Maryland, and New Jersey, and in the eastern district of New York, the northern and southern districts of Ohio, the district of Oregon, the eastern and western districts of Pennsylvania, and the western district of Washington, there is an additional district judge in each, and in the southern district of New York, three ad ditional judges. In Maryland, upon the death of the senior judge, the vacancy shall not be filled. There is one judge for the eastern and western districts of South Caro lina, one for the eastern and middle districts of Tennessee, and one for the northern and southern districts of Mississippi. Every dis trict judge must reside in the district or in one of the districts for which he is appoint ed ; to offend against this provision is made a high misdemeanor. The salary is $6,000 a year.