The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878
He continued by warning of Britain’s plan to enslave American colonists through the Stamp Act and other such measures; then continued:
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 was designed to create a clear division between the military and domestic police forces. The act outlaws any direct involvement by the United States military in any law enforcement operation. But it also contains a provision that allows the act to be temporarily repealed in some instances. A waiver signed by the president can remove the act’s provisions in cases of emergency, and this has taken place at least twice since the creation of the Delta Force.
In 1987, a wave of Cuban refugees came to the United States. Unsure about what to do with such large numbers of emigrants from a nation unfriendly to the United States, President Ronald Reagan ordered the refugees locked up in federal prisons until they could either be processed by Immigration officials or sent back to Cuba. At the federal penitentiary in Atlanta, a group of the Cuban refugees mounted an uprising. When federal agents could not control the riot, Reagan waived the Posse Comitatus Act and ordered a unit of Delta Force operators to subdue the uprising.
Delta Force was also called out to serve as guards for visiting dignitaries during the World Trade Organization summit in Seattle, Wa., in 1999. Mass protest against the summit was held near the meetings, causing alarm for Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. The Posse Comitatus Act wasn’t waived in this case since it was Albright, not law enforcement, who called upon Delta Force’s services.
In 1993, the Posse Comitatus Act was again waived, this time by President Bill Clinton. In Waco, Texas, an armed religious sect known as the Branch Davidians mounted a standoff against the FBI. Three Delta Force operators were allowed at the site of the standoff. Two served as trainers and technical advisors to the FBI on a classified piece of surveillance equipment. Another served as an observer.
There are claims, however, that there were far more Delta Force operators at the standoff in Waco than just three. Some speculate as many as 20 Delta Force members were there and that they took part in both the planning and the execution of the siege that later took place, leaving 80 Branch Davidian men, women and children dead. Reports of Delta Force involvement come from anonymous sources, however, and the U.S. government denies these claims.
This wasn’t the first time the Delta Force and the FBI had seen each other in action. In 1978, the Delta Force and the FBI trained together in the Nevada desert, near an old nuclear test site. Known as the Joshua Junction exercise, the two groups worked together in hostage negotiation and rescue training. Since then, the FBI and its Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) has worked with Delta Force in other operations, like security details for Olympic games held in American cities — Los Angeles in 1984 and Atlanta in 1996.
But this isn’t necessarily the extent of Delta Force’s domestic missions. In the next section, we’ll look at some shady operations — in which some claim Delta Force took part — that test the limits of legality, and in some cases, go beyond it.
It means the governance is by Corporation law—seems that 1871 was the year that the corporate body of the United States of America was formed.—-(Municipal Law) —
a ” Corporation”
with a legislature was established,
with all the apparatus of a distinct government
created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, February 21, 1871, Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419
On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337
A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District
(brought forward from the act of 1871)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS,
181 U.S. 453 (1901)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CAMDEN IRON WORKS.
Mr. Samuel Maddox for defendant in error.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
The first section of the act “to provide a government for the District of Columbia,” approved February 21, 1871, 16 Stat. 458*458 419, c. 62, provided: “That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a body corporate for municipal purposes, and may contract and be contracted with, sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded, have a seal, and exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the provisions of this act.”
A governor and legislature were created; also a board of public works, to which was given the control and repair of the streets, avenues, alleys and sewers of the city of Washington, and all other works which might be intrusted to their charge by either the legislative assembly or Congress. They were empowered to disburse the moneys received for the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys, sewers, roads and bridges, and to assess upon adjoining property specially benefited thereby a reasonable proportion of the cost, not exceeding one third.
June 20, 1874, an act was passed entitled “An act for the government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.” 18 Stat. 116, c. 337. By this act the government established by the act of 1871 was abolished, and the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate was authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and authority vested in the governor and the board of public works, except as afterwards limited by the act.
By a subsequent act approved June 11, 1878, 20 Stat. 102, c. 180, it was enacted that the District of Columbia should “remain and continue a municipal corporation,” as provided in section two of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, (brought forward from the act of 1871,) and the appointment of Commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the Commissioners appointed under the act of 1874.
This legislation is considered and set forth in Metropolitan Railroad v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, 6.
By section thirty-seven of the act of February 21, 1871, which is applicable to the present Commissioners, District of Columbia 459*459 v. Bailey, 171 U.S. 161, 175, it was provided that “all contracts made by the said board of public works shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the parties making the same, and a copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the secretary of the District; and said board of public works shall have no power to make contracts to bind said District to the payment of any sums of money except in pursuance of appropriations made by law, and not until such appropriations shall have been made.”
Section five of the act of June 11, 1878, provided: “All contracts for the construction, improvement, alteration, or repair of the streets, avenues, highways, alleys, gutters, sewers, and all work of like nature, shall be made and entered into only by and with the official unanimous consent of the Commissioners of the District, and all contracts shall be copied in a book kept for that purpose and be signed by the said Commissioners, and no contract involving an expenditure of more than one hundred dollars shall be valid until recorded and signed as aforesaid.”
On March 3, 1887, an act of Congress was approved, by which the sum of $100,000 was appropriated for “repairing and laying new mains,” and “lowering mains,” and for engineers and others under the water department of the district government. 24 Stat. 580, c. 389.
The contract in this case was signed by all of the Commissioners and recorded in a book kept for that purpose as required by the act of Congress. Unquestionably the Commissioners when they executed the contract were authorized to purchase iron pipe for the extension of the water service, and as the municipal corporation had the right to have a seal, which could be changed from time to time, it had the right to execute contracts under seal. The principal objection here is, however, that this was not the sealed obligation of the District. It is conceded that the Commissioners, who signed the contract officially, were not personally liable thereon, and that the contract bound the District, but it is insisted that the contract was not a specialty. The opinion of the Court of Appeals by Chief Justice Alvey satisfactorily disposes of this objection, and we concur with the views therein expressed.
460*460 The board of Commissioners was constituted by statute to carry the powers of the municipal corporation called the District of Columbia into effect. The Commissioners could adopt for the corporation any seal they chose, whether intended to be permanently used, or adopted for the time being. When, acting officially, as in this instance, they signed and sealed the instrument as for the corporation, their signatures and seals bound the corporation as by a specialty. As Judge Putman said in Mill Dam Foundry v. Hovey, 21 Pick. 417, 428: “A corporation as well as an individual person may use and adopt any seal. They need not say that it is their common seal. The law is as old as the books. Twenty may seal at one time with the same seal.”
The general rule is “that when a deed is executed, or a contract is made on behalf of a State by a public officer duly authorized, and this fact appears upon the face of the instrument, it is the deed or contract of the State, notwithstanding that the officer may be described as one of the parties, and may have affixed his individual name and seal. In such cases the State alone is bound by the deed or contract, and can alone claim its benefits.” Sheets v. Selden’s Lessee, 2 Wall. 177, 187; Hodgson v. Dexter, 1 Cranch, 345.
As to private corporations, where authority is shown to execute a contract under seal, the fact that a seal is attached with intent to seal on behalf of the corporation, is enough though some other seal than the ordinary common seal of the company should be used. Jacksonville Railroad Co. v. Hooper, 160 U.S. 514; Stebbins v. Merritt, 10 Cushing, 27, 34; Bank v. Railroad Company, 30 Vt. 159; Tenney v. East Warren Lumber Company, 43 N.H. 343; Porter v. Railroad Company, 47 Maine, 349; Phillips v. Coffee, 17 Illinois, 154. Many of these cases are cited by Judge Dillon in his work on Municipal Corporations, (4th ed.) § 190, where he says: “Respecting seals, the same general principles apply to private and to municipal corporations. Thus, a corporation of the latter class would doubtless be bound equally with a private corporation by any seal which has been authoritatively affixed to an instrument requiring it, though it be not the seal regularly adopted.”
461*461 Under the former corporate organization of the District a seal had been adopted, but it was not until after this contract was entered into that the board took official action in respect of it. It is to be assumed on this record that the Commissioners affixed their seals as the seal of the corporation. It was for them to determine whether the interests of the District required the contract to be sealed.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that this contract was not only the contract of the District, as is conceded, but that it was its deed, upon which an action of covenant could be maintained. It was therefore properly admitted in evidence, and recovery could be had thereon, if otherwise justified. As such an action is not barred in three years the demurrer to the plea of the three years’ statute of limitations was necessarily sustained.
The next proposition of the District, that it was not competent for plaintiff below to show by parol that the contract was finally executed and delivered by the District at a date subsequent to the date of the contract, is without merit. The contract did not provide that the work was to be completed within one hundred and thirty-six days from its date, but “after the date of the execution of the contract.” It is well settled that, in such circumstances, it may be averred and shown that a deed, bond or other instrument was in fact made, executed and delivered at a date subsequent to that stated on its face.
In United States v. Le Baron, 19 How. 73, it was ruled that a deed speaks from the time of its delivery, not from its date; and Mr. Justice Curtis, who gave the opinion, cited Clayton’s case, 5 Coke, 1; Oshey v. Hicks, Cro. Jac. 263, and Steele v. Mart, 4 B. & C. 272. To which the Court of Appeals added Hall v. Cazenove, 4 East, 477. These cases fully sustain the doctrine that parties, situated as here, are not precluded from proving by parol evidence when a deed or contract is actually made and executed, from which time it takes effect.
In Williams v. Bank, 2 Pet. 96, 102, it was laid down as a general principle of law that “If a party to a contract who is entitled to the benefit of a condition, upon the performance of which his responsibility is to arise, dispense with, or by any act 462*462 of his own prevent the performance, the opposite party is excused from proving a strict compliance with the condition. Thus, if the precedent act is to be performed at a certain time or place, and a strict performance of it is prevented by the absence of the party who has a right to claim it; the law will not permit him to set up the non-performance of the condition as a bar to the responsibility which his part of the contract has imposed upon him.”
In this case the further performance of the contract was determined by the consent of the parties, but the contract was not rescinded except as to the future manufacture of pipe for delivery.
The third objection of the District is that an action of covenant on the contract would not lie to recover the price of the pipe that was delivered, because there had not been full performance; yet the pipe, to recover the price for which this action was brought, was, as the Court of Appeals said, manufactured, delivered, and accepted under the contract, in part performance thereof, and with reference to the specifications and price agreed upon as set forth in the contract. The dispensation of complete performance did not make a new contract, nor alter the terms of the existing agreement. It was a mere waiver of further performance.
It is said that the demurrer to the plea of limitations, the ninth plea, ought to have been carried back to the declaration. The hearing of that demurrer was reserved by stipulation to the trial of the cause, no suggestion of this kind was then made, and the declaration was good as against a general demurrer. The company averred full performance, “except in so far as it was prevented or discharged from so doing by the defendant.” That was not setting up a modified or substituted contract, but a waiver of a condition precedent to be performed by plaintiff.
In McCombs v. McKennan, 2 W. & S. 216, it was held that covenant may be sustained upon a contract under seal, notwithstanding by subsequent consent of the parties the place at which the articles called for were to be delivered was changed.
In Construction Company v. Seymour, 91 U.S. 646, it was held that defendant was liable on his covenant for the contract 463*463 price of the work when completed, where absolute performance had been waived. And in many cases of prevention by the defendant or of tender and refusal, the plaintiff has been held to have the right of action on a special contract, prevention or refusal being equivalent for that purpose to performance.
Assuming that full performance was dispensed with the court did not err in ruling that the right to sue upon the contract remained.
The court gave to the jury, on behalf of plaintiff, the following instructions:
“If the jury believe from the evidence that the plaintiff corporation was prevented from completing the delivery of pipe by it stipulated to be manufactured and delivered under the contract offered in evidence within the time or times therein limited by any act or omission on the part of the defendant, then the defendant is not entitled to charge against the plaintiff any fines or penalties for such delay in delivering pipes as was occasioned by such act or omission.
“If the jury believe from the evidence that the defendant, by its silence or conduct, caused the plaintiff corporation to believe, on or about the 1st day of December, A.D. 1887, that all pipe thereafter delivered would be taken and paid for at contract rates, without any deduction, and thereby induced the plaintiff to act on that belief and thereafter deliver pipe to the defendant, which the plaintiff would not have otherwise done, and the defendant accepted such pipe, the defendant is estopped from charging against the plaintiff any fines or penalties for not delivering such pipe within the time or times specified by the contract.”
Defendant asked the following instruction, which the court refused to give:
“If the jury believe from the evidence that the failure of plaintiff to deliver the iron pipes mentioned in the contract given in evidence at the times and in the quantities specified, hindered and delayed the defendant in extending the water service in 1887, then the defendant had a right to charge against the price it agreed to pay the plaintiff for the pipe it undertook to deliver as liquidated damages the penalties provided in the contract.”
464*464 The fourth question is whether the court erred in these rulings. Defendant’s instruction was clearly wrong, and it seems to us that plaintiff’s instructions fairly submitted the contention as to penalties and forfeitures to the jury. If strict performance by plaintiff was prevented or waived by defendant as contended on the facts, then the claim for fines or penalties for delay or failure to deliver the pipe could not be sustained.
The court left the matter of interest to the jury, and refused to give at defendant’s request an instruction that no interest should be allowed except from the time of the institution of the suit. Exception was taken to this refusal, but, in view of the evidence, the trial court committed no error in that regard, Rev. Stat. D.C. § 829; Washington & Georgetown Railroad v. Harmon’s Admr., 147 U.S. 571, 585. To the general charge of the court in respect of interest no exceptions were preserved.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. A.S. Worthington for Bailey.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
The decision of this controversy involves two propositions. Did the Commissioners of the District of Columbia have the power to agree to submit the claim in issue to the award of an arbitrator? And if they did have the power, did they lawfully exercise it? To answer either of these questions it becomes essential to ascertain whether an agreement to submit to arbitration involves the power to contract. Both of the matters above stated depend upon this last inquiry, because both the claim that the District of Columbia did not in valid form exercise the power to submit to arbitration, and the assertion that if they so did they were not authorized to that end, rest on the claim that the submission was not made in 171*171 the form required by law to constitute a contract, and even if the alleged award was in legal form, nevertheless the District Commissioners were without power to contract for that purpose.
In determining whether an agreement to arbitrate involves the power to contract we eliminate at once from consideration consents to arbitrate made under a rule of court, by consent, in a pending suit, and shall consider only whether an agreement to arbitrate not under rule of court or within the terms of a statute enacted for such purpose is or is not a contract. We do this, because there is no pretence in the case at bar that the submission to arbitration was under a rule of court or equivalent thereto. Indeed, the courts below held that the submission of the claim in question to arbitration was a purely common law one and not made under a statute or rule of court; and in consequence of these views the courts held it to be their duty to make the award executory by rendering a judgment thereon, on the assumption that the parties having agreed to a common law submission were bound by reason thereof to abide by the award of the arbitrator.
The general rule is, “that every one who is capable of making a disposition of his property, or a release of his right, may make a submission to an award; but no one can, who is either under a natural or civil incapacity of contracting.” Kyd, p. 35; Russell on Arbitrators, p. 14. And Morse, in the opening paragraph of his treatise on Arbitration and Award (p. 3), says: “A submission is a contract.” And again, at p. 50: “The submission is the agreement of the parties to refer. It is, therefore, a contract, and will in general be governed by the law concerning contracts.” In Whitcher v. Whitcher, 49 N.H. 176, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire said (p. 180): “A submission is a contract between two or more parties, whereby they agree to refer the subject in dispute to others and to be bound by their award, and the submission itself implies an agreement to abide the result, even if no such agreement were expressed.” It was because a submission to arbitration had the force of a contract, that at common law a submission by a corporation aggregate was required to be 172*172 the act of the corporate body, Russell on Arbitrators, fifth edition, p. 20; which act was of necessity required to be evidenced in a particular manner.
It is true that an executor, at common law, had the power to submit to an award. But this power arose by reason of the full dominion which the law gave the executor or administrator over the assets, and the full discretion which it vested in him for the settlement and liquidation of all claims due to and from the estate. Wheatley v. Martin, 6 Leigh, 62; Wamsley v. Wamsley, 26 W. Va. 45; Wood v. Tunnicliff, 74 N.Y. 38. Whilst, however, the agreement of the executor to a common law submission was binding upon him, such a consent on his part did not protect him from being called to an account by the beneficiaries of the estate, if the submission proved not to be to their advantage, because the submission was the voluntary act of the executor and was not the equivalent of a judicial finding. 3 Williams on Executors, p. 326, and authorities cited. So, also, the power of a municipal corporation to arbitrate arises from its authority to liquidate and settle claims, and the rule on this subject is thus stated by Dillon (Mun. Corp. 4th ed. sec. 478):
“As a general proposition, municipal corporations have, unless specially restricted, the same powers to liquidate claims and indebtedness that natural persons have, and from that source proceeds power to adjust all disputed claims, and when the amount is ascertained to pay the same as other indebtedness. It would seem to follow therefrom that a municipal corporation, unless disabled by positive law, could submit to arbitration all unsettled claims with the same liability to perform the award as would rest upon a natural person, provided, of course, that such power be exercised by ordinance or resolution of the corporate authorities.”
In the early case of Brady v. Brooklyn, 1 Barb. 584, 589, the power of a municipal corporation to submit to arbitration was ascribed to the capacity to contract, with a liability to pay, and it was held that corporations have all the powers of ordinary parties as respects their contracts, except when they are restricted expressly, or by necessary implication. In the 173*173 case of minor public officials or corporations, such as selectmen and school districts, the power to arbitrate has been clearly rested upon the existence of the right to adjust and settle claims of the particular character which had been submitted to arbitration. Dix v. Dummerston, 19 Vermont, 262; Walnut v. Rankin, 70 Iowa, 65. Indeed, the proposition that an independent agreement to submit to an award must depend for its validity upon the existence of the right to contract is so elementary that further citation of authority to support it is unnecessary.
Examining, then, the questions we have stated in their inverse order, we proceed to inquire whether the Commissioners of the District of Columbia had the power to enter into a contract of the nature of that under consideration. The solution of this inquiry requires a brief examination of the statutes, from which alone the powers of the Commissioners of the District are derived.
By the act of June 20, 1874, c. 337, “An act for the government of the District of Columbia, and other purposes,” 18 Stat. 116, the commission provided for in section 2 was vested with the power and authority of the then governor or board of public works of the District, except as thereinafter limited, and it was provided that “said commission, in the exercise of such power or authority, shall make no contract, nor incur any obligation other than such contracts and obligations as may be necessary to the faithful administration of the valid laws enacted for the government of said District, to the execution of existing legal obligations and contracts, and to the protection or preservation of improvements existing, or commenced and not completed, at the time of the passage of this act.”
By the act of June 11, 1878, c. 180, “An act providing a permanent form of government for the District of Columbia,” 20 Stat. 102, the District and the property and persons therein were made subject to the provisions of the act, “and also to any existing laws applicable thereto not hereby repealed or inconsistent with the provisions of this act.” The Commissioners provided for in the act were, by section 3, vested with 174174 all the powers, rights, duties and privileges lawfully exercised by, and all property, estate and effects vested in the Commissioners appointed under the provisions of the act of June 20, 1874, and were given power, subject to the limitations and provisions contained in the act, to apply the taxes or other revenues of the District to the payment of the current expenses thereof, to the support of the public schools, the fire department and the police. It was expressly enacted, however, in the same section, that the Commissioners in the exercise of the duties, powers and authority vested in them “shall make no contract, nor incur any obligation other than such contracts and obligations as are hereinafter provided for and shall be approved by Congress.” In the same section it was further provided that the Commissioners should annually submit to the Secretary of the Treasury, for his examination and approval and transmission by him to Congress, a statement “showing in detail the work proposed to be undertaken by the Commissioners during the fiscal year next ensuing, and the estimated cost thereof; also the cost of constructing, repairing and maintaining all bridges authorized by law across the Potomac River within the District of Columbia, and also all other streams in said District; the cost of maintaining all public institutions of charity, reformatories and prisons belonging to or controlled wholly or in part by the District of Columbia, and which are now by law supported wholly or in part by the United States or District of Columbia; and also the expenses of the Washington Aqueduct and its appurtenances; and also an itemized statement and estimate of the amount necessary to defray the expenses of the government of the District of Columbia for the next fiscal year.” Of the estimates as finally approved by Congress, the act provided that fifty per cent should be appropriated for by Congress, and the remaining fifty per cent assessed upon the taxable property and privileges in the District other than the property of the United States and of the District of Columbia. In the fifth section of the act provision was made for the letting by contract, after due advertisement, of all work of repair on streets, etc., where the cost would exceed one thousand 175175 dollars, and it was also, in said section, stipulated that “all contracts for the construction, improvement, alteration or repairs of the streets, avenues, highways, alleys, gutters, sewers and all work of like nature shall be made and entered into only by and with the official unanimous consent of the Commissioners of the District, and all contracts shall be copied in a book kept for that purpose and be signed by the said Commissioners, and no contract involving an expenditure of more than one hundred dollars shall be valid until recorded and signed as aforesaid.”
By section 37 of the act of February 21, 1871, c. 62, 16 Stat. 419, 427, it was provided as follows:
“All contracts made by the said board of public works shall be in writing, and shall be signed by the parties making the same, and a copy thereof shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of the District, and said board of public works shall have no power to make contracts to bind said District to the payment of any sums of money except in pursuance of appropriations made by law, and not until such appropriations shall have been made.”
This section is deemed to be applicable to the present Commissioners. (Comp. Stat. Dis. Col. secs. 30 and 31, pp. 201-2.) So, also, by section 15 of the act of 1871, 16 Stat. 423, it was provided that the legislative assembly should not “authorize the payment of any claim, or part thereof, hereafter created against the District under any contract or agreement made, without express authority of law, and all such unauthorized agreements or contracts shall be null and void.”
Section 13 of the joint resolution of June 1, 1878, embodies the second section of the joint resolution approved March 14, 1876, 19 Stat. 211, 212, which made it a misdemeanor for any officer or person to increase or aid or abet in increasing the total indebtedness of the District.
Under the statutes of 1874 and 1878, above referred to, it has been held that the District of Columbia still continued to be a municipal corporation, and that it was subject to the operation of a statute of limitations, Metropolitan Railroad Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1, and was also liable 176*176 for damages caused by a neglect to repair the streets within the District. District of Columbia v. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 450. But the mere fact that the District is a municipal corporation is not decisive of the question whether or not the Commissioners of the District had power to make a contract to submit to an award, for, as we have seen, it is not the mere existence of a municipal corporate being from which the power to make a submission to arbitration is deduced, but that the municipal corporation by which such an agreement is entered into has power to contract, to settle and adjust debts; in other words, all the general attributes which normally attach to and result from municipal corporate existence. Recurring to the statutes relating to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, it is clear from their face that these officers are without general power to contract debts, or to adjust and pay the same; that, on the contrary, the statutes expressly deprive them of such power, and limit the scope of their authority to the mere execution of contracts previously sanctioned by Congress or which they are authorized to make by express statutory authority. The necessary operation of these provisions of the statutes is to cause the District Commissioners to be merely administrative officers with ministerial powers only. The sum of the municipal powers of the District of Columbia is neither vested in nor exercised by the District Commissioners. They are, on the contrary, vested in the Congress of the United States, acting pro hac vice as the legislative body of the District, and the Commissioners of the District discharge the functions of administrative officials.
There is no authority for holding that a mere administrative officer of a municipal corporation, simply because of the absence of a statutory inhibition, has the power, without the consent of the corporation speaking through its municipal legislative body, to bind the corporation by a common law submission. And this being true, with how much less reason can it be contended that the administrative officers of the District have such power without the consent of Congress, when the acts defining the powers of the Commissioners, by clear and necessary implication, contain an express prohibition to the contrary?
177*177 Nor is it in reason sound to say that because the District Commissioners have the power to sue and be sued, they have therefore the authority to enter into a contract to submit a claim preferred against the District to arbitration, and thus to oust the courts of jurisdiction, when no authority is conferred upon the Commissioners to contract to pay a claim of the character embraced in the arbitration, and no appropriation had been made by Congress for the payment of any such claim. It cannot be said that because Congress had appropriated for the improvement of streets, and therefore authorized a contract for such improvement to the extent of the appropriation, that it had also authorized and appropriated for a claim in damages asserted to have arisen from the fact that work had been stopped because the appropriation made by Congress had been exhausted. The appropriation of money to improve streets was in no sense the appropriation of money to pay a claim for unliquidated damages arising, not for work and labor performed and materials furnished, but from the refusal to permit the performance of work and labor and the furnishing of materials.
Aside from the prohibition imposed on the Commissioners of the District by the acts of Congress against entering into contracts for the payment of money for any claim not specifically appropriated for, an agreement to submit the claim in question to the arbitrament of a single individual was, if valid, a contract binding the District to pay any sum of money which the arbitrator might award. It cannot be doubted that if the District Commissioners themselves had seen fit to pass a resolution reciting that the appropriation by Congress for the improvement of the streets had been exhausted, and that a given sum of money was set aside to pay a claim for damages preferred against the District for having contracted when there was no appropriation, such action would have been, under the statutes, ultra vires. But if the express action of the Commissioners to this end would have been void, how can it be contended that by indirection, that is, by entering into an agreement to submit to an award, the Commissioners had the power to delegate to a third person an authority which 178*178 they themselves did not possess? Whilst the fundamental want of power in the District Commissioners to agree to a common law submission is decisive, there is another view which is equally so. By the express terms of the statute the Commissioners are forbidden to enter into any contract binding the District for the payment of any sum of money in excess of one hundred dollars, unless the same is reduced to writing and is recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose, and signed by all the Commissioners, the statute declaring, in express terms, that no contract shall be valid unless recorded as aforesaid. This mandatory provision of the statute clearly makes the form in which a contract is embodied of the essence of the contract. In other words, by virtue of the restrictions and inhibitions of the statute a contract calling for an expenditure in excess of one hundred dollars cannot take effect unless made in the form stated. The form, therefore, becomes a matter of fundamental right, and illustrates the application of the maxim forma dat esse rei. That the mere statement of the appointment of a referee on the minutes without the signature of any of the Commissioners did not comply with the requirements referred to, is too clear for discussion. The attempt to give effect to such entry as a contract without regard to the requirements of the law illustrates the wisdom of the statute and the evil of disregarding it, for on the trial two of the three commissioners testified, one on behalf of the plaintiff and the other on behalf of the defendant, and swore to directly opposite views as to whether or not there had been a common law submission by the Commissioners.
We have considered what has been referred to by counsel as the order of the Commissioners, according to its terms, which embraced only the matters contained in the action then pending, and have not regarded the parol evidence which sought to vary and contradict the writing by establishing that it was intended thereby to embrace a claim which had not been asserted in the action. The views we have advanced being decisive against the legality of the alleged award, it follows that the judgment in favor of the administratrix based thereon must be reversed. As, however, the consolidation of 179*179 the action upon the award with the original action for damages for breach of the contract for the resurfacing, and the trial of such consolidated cause, proceeded upon the hypothesis that a valid agreement to arbitrate had been entered into, the ends of justice will be subserved by also reversing the judgment in favor of the District entered in the original action. It is therefore ordered that the judgments be
METROPOLITAN RAILROAD COMPANY
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Mr. Nathaniel Wilson and Mr. Walter D. Davidge for plaintiff in error.
MR. JUSTICE BRADLEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This was an action brought by the District of Columbia in November, 1880, to recover from the Metropolitan Railroad Company the sum of $161,622.52. The alleged cause of action was work done and materials furnished by the plaintiff in paving certain streets and avenues in the city of Washington at various times in the years 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, and 1875, upon and in consequence of the neglect of the defendant to do said work and furnish said materials in accordance with its duty as prescribed by its charter.
The defendant was chartered by an act of Congress dated July 1, 1864, 13 Stat. 326, c. 190, and amended March 3, 1865, 13 Stat. 536, c. 119. By these acts it was authorized to construct and operate lines or routes of double track railways in designated streets and avenues in Washington and Georgetown.
The first section of the charter contains the following proviso: “Provided, that the use and maintenance of said road shall be subject to the municipal regulations of the city of Washington within its corporate limits.” Of course this provision reserves police control over the road and its operations on the part of the authorities of the city. The fourth section of the charter declares, “that the said corporation hereby created shall be bound to keep said tracks, and for the space of two feet beyond the outer rail thereof, and also the space between the tracks, at all times well paved and in good order, without expense to the United States or to the city of Washington.” The fifth section declares “that nothing in this act shall prevent the government at any time, at their option, from altering the grade or otherwise improving all avenues and streets occupied by said roads, or the city of Washington from so altering or improving such streets and avenues, and the sewerage thereof, as may be under their respective authority and control; and in such event it shall be the duty of said 3*3 company to change their said railroad so as to conform to such grade and pavement.”
It is on these provisions that the claim of the city is based.
The amended declaration sets out in great detail the grading and paving which were done in various streets and avenues along and adjoining the tracks of the defendant, and which it is averred should have been done by the defendant under the provisions of its charter; but which the defendant neglected and refused to do.
The defendant filed twelve several pleas to the action, the eleventh and twelfth being pleas of the statute of limitations. Issue was taken upon all the pleas except these two, and they were demurred to. The court sustained the demurrer, and the cause was tried on the other issues, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. 4 Mackey, 214.
The case is brought here by writ of error, which brings up for consideration a bill of exceptions taken at the trial, and the ruling upon the demurrer to the pleas of the statute of limitations. It is conceded that if the court below erred in sustaining that demurrer, the judgment must be reversed. That question will, therefore, be first considered.
It is contended by the plaintiff that it (the District of Columbia) is not amenable to the statute of limitations, for three reasons: first, because of its dignity as partaking of the sovereign power of government; secondly, because it is not embraced in the terms of the statute of limitations in force in the District; and, thirdly, because if the general words of the statute are sufficiently broad to include the District, still, municipal corporations, unless specially mentioned, are not subject to the statute.
- The first question, therefore, will be, whether the District of Columbia is, or is not, a municipal body merely, or whether it has such a sovereign character, or is so identified with or representative of the sovereignty of the United States as to be entitled to the prerogatives and exemptions of sovereignty.
In order to a better understanding of the subject under consideration, it will be proper to take a brief survey of the government of the District and the changes it has undergone since its first organization.
44 Prior to 1871, the local government of the District of Columbia, on the east side of the Potomac, had been divided between the corporations of Washington and Georgetown and the Levy Court of the county of Washington. Georgetown had been incorporated by the legislature of Maryland as early as 1789, (Davis’s Laws, Dist. Col. 478,) as Alexandria had been by the legislature of Virginia, as early as 1748 and 1779 (Davis’s Laws, 533, 541); and those towns or cities were clearly nothing more than ordinary municipal corporations, with the usual powers of such corporations. When the government of the United States took possession of the District in December, 1800, it was divided by Congress into two counties, that of Alexandria on the west side of the Potomac, and that of Washington on the east side; and the laws of Virginia were continued over the former, and the laws of Maryland over the latter; and a court, called the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia, was established with general jurisdiction, civil and criminal, to hold sessions alternately in each county; but the corporate rights of the cities of Alexandria and Georgetown, and of all other corporate bodies, were expressly left unimpaired, except as related to judicial powers. See Act of Feb. 27, 1801, 2 Stat. 103, c. 15. A supplementary act, passed a few days later, gave to the Circuit Court certain administrative powers, the same as those vested in the County and Levy Courts of Virginia and Maryland respectively; and it was declared that the magistrates to be appointed should be a board of commissioners within their respective counties, and have the same powers and perform the same duties, as the Levy Courts of Maryland. These powers related to the construction and repair of roads, bridges, ferries, the care of the poor, &c. Act of March 3, 1801, 2 Stat. 115, c. 25. On May 3, 1802, an act was passed to incorporate the city of Washington. 2 Stat. 195, c. 53. It invested the mayor and common council (the latter being elected by the white male inhabitants) with all the usual powers of municipal bodies, such as the power to pass by-laws and ordinances; powers of administration, regulation and taxation; amongst others specially named, the power “to erect and 55 repair bridges; to keep in repair all necessary streets, avenues, drains, and sewers, and to pass regulations necessary for the preservation of the same, agreeably to the plan of said city.” Various amendments, from time to time, were made to this charter, and additional powers were conferred. A general revision of it was made by act of Congress passed May 15, 1820. 3 Stat. 583, c. 104. A further revision was made and additional powers were given by the act of May 17, 1848, 9 Stat. 223, c. 42; but nothing to change the essential character of the corporation.
The powers of the Levy Court extended more particularly to the country, outside of the cities; but also to some matters in the cities common to the whole county. It was reorganized, and its powers and duties more specifically defined, in the acts of July 1st, 1812, 2 Stat. 771, c. 117, and of March 3d, 1863, 12 Stat. 799. By the last act, the members of the court were to be nine in number, and to be appointed by the President and Senate.
In the first year of the war, August 6th, 1861, 12 Stat. 320, c. 62, an act was passed “to create a Metropolitan Police District of the District of Columbia, and to establish a Police therefor.” The police had previously been appointed and regulated by the mayor and common council of Washington; but it was now deemed important that it should be under the control of the government. The act provided for the appointment of five commissioners by the President and Senate, who, together with the mayors of Washington and Georgetown, were to form the board of police for the District; and this board was invested with extraordinary powers of surveillance and guardianship of the peace.
This general review of the form of government which prevailed in the District of Columbia and city of Washington prior to 1871 is sufficient to show that it was strictly municipal in its character; and that the government of the United States, except so far as the protection of its own public buildings and property was concerned, took no part in the local government, any more than any state government interferes with the municipal administration of its cities. The officers 6*6 of the departments, even the President himself, exercised no local authority in city affairs. It is true, in consequence of the large property interests of the United States in Washington, in the public parks and buildings, the government always made some contribution to the finances of the city; but the residue was raised by taxing the inhabitants of the city and District, just as the inhabitants of all municipal bodies are taxed.
In 1871 an important modification was made in the form of the District government; a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government. By the act of February 21st, of that year, entitled “An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia,” 16 Stat. 419, c. 62, it was enacted (§ 1) that all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it was constituted “a body corporate for municipal purposes,” with power to make contracts, sue and be sued, and “to exercise all other powers of a municipal corporation not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” A governor and legislature were created; also a board of public works; the latter to consist of the governor as its president, and four other persons, to be appointed by the President and Senate. To this board was given the control and repair of the streets, avenues, alleys and sewers of the city of Washington, and all other works which might be intrusted to their charge by the legislative assembly or Congress. They were empowered to disburse the moneys raised for the improvement of streets, avenues, alleys and sewers, and roads and bridges, and to assess upon adjoining property, specially benefited thereby, a reasonable proportion of the cost, not exceeding one-third. The acts of this board were held to be binding on the municipality of the District in Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540. It was regarded as a mere branch of the District government, though appointed by the President and not subject to the control of the District authorities.
This constitution lasted until June 20th, 1874, when an act 7*7 was passed entitled “An act for the government of the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.” 18 Stat. 116, c. 337. By this act the government established by the act of 1871 was abolished, and the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was authorized to appoint a commission, consisting of three persons, to exercise the power and authority then vested in the governor and board of public works, except as afterwards limited by the act. By a subsequent act, approved June 11th, 1878, 20 Stat. 102, c. 180, it was enacted that the District of Columbia should “remain and continue a municipal corporation,” as provided in § 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District, and the appointment of commissioners was provided for, to have and to exercise similar powers given to the commissioners appointed under the act of 1874. All rights of action and suits for and against the District were expressly preserved in statu quo.
Under these different changes the administration of the affairs of the District of Columbia and city of Washington has gone on in much the same way, except a change in the depositaries of power, and in the extent and number of powers conferred upon them. Legislative powers have now ceased, and the municipal government is confined to mere administration. The identity of corporate existence is continued, and all actions and suits for and against the District are preserved unaffected by the changes that have occurred.
In view of these laws, the counsel of the plaintiff contend that the government of the District of Columbia is a department of the United States government, and that the corporation is a mere name, and not a person in the sense of the law, distinct from the government itself. We cannot assent to this view. It is contrary to the express language of the statutes. That language is that the District shall “remain and continue a municipal corporation,” with all rights of action and suits for and against it. If it were a department of the government, how could it be sued? Can the Treasury Department be sued? or any other department? We are of opinion that the corporate capacity and corporate liabilities 8*8 of the District of Columbia remain as before, and that its character as a mere municipal corporation has not been changed. The mode of appointing its officers does not abrogate its character as a municipal body politic. We do not suppose that it is necessary to a municipal government, or to municipal responsibility, that the officers should be elected by the people. Local self-government is undoubtedly desirable where there are not forcible reasons against its exercise. But it is not required by any inexorable principle. All municipal governments are but agencies of the superior power of the State or government by which they are constituted, and are invested with only such subordinate powers of local legislation and control as the superior legislature sees fit to confer upon them. The form of those agencies and the mode of appointing officials to execute them are matters of legislative discretion. Commissioners are not unfrequently appointed by the legislature or executive of a State for the administration of municipal affairs, or some portion thereof, sometimes temporarily, sometimes permanently. It may be demanded by motives of expediency or the exigencies of the situation; by the boldness of corruption, the absence of public order and security, or the necessity of high executive ability in dealing with particular populations. Such unusual constitutions do not release the people from the duty of obedience or from taxation, or the municipal body from those liabilities to which such bodies are ordinarily subject. Protection of life and property are enjoyed, perhaps in greater degree, than they could be, in such cases, under elective magistracies; and the government of the whole people is preserved in the legislative representation of the State or general government. “Nor can it in principle,” said Mr. Justice Hunt in the Barnes case, “be of the slightest consequence by what means these several officers are placed in their position, whether they are elected by the people of the municipality or appointed by the President or a governor. The people are the recognized source of all authority, State and municipal, and to this authority it must come at last, whether immediately or by a circuitous process.” Barnes v. District of Columbia, 91 U.S. 540, 545.
9*9 One argument of the plaintiff’s counsel in this connection is, that the District of Columbia is a separate State or sovereignty according to the definition of writers on public law, being a distinct political society. This position is assented to by Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, 2 Cranch, 445, 452, where the question was whether a citizen of the District could sue in the circuit courts of the United States as a citizen of a State. The court did not deny that the District of Columbia is a State in the sense of being a distinct political community; but held that the word “State” in the Constitution, where it extends the judicial power to cases between citizens of the several “States,” refers to the States of the Union. It is undoubtedly true that the District of Columbia is a separate political community in a certain sense, and in that sense may be called a State; but the sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress. The subordinate legislative powers of a municipal character which have been or may be lodged in the city corporations, or in the District corporation, do not make those bodies sovereign. Crimes committed in the District are not crimes against the District, but against the United States. Therefore, whilst the District may, in a sense, be called a State, it is such in a very qualified sense. No more than this was meant by Chief Justice Taney, when, in the Bank of Alexandria v. Dyer, 14 Pet. 141, 146, he spoke of the District of Columbia as being formed, by the acts of Congress, into one separate political community, and of the two counties composing it (Washington and Alexandria) as resembling different counties in the same State; by reason whereof it was held that parties residing in one county could not be said to be “beyond the seas,” or in a different jurisdiction, in reference to the other county, though the two counties were subject to different laws.
We are clearly of opinion that the plaintiff is a municipal corporation, having a right to sue and be sued, and subject to the ordinary rules that govern the law of procedure between private persons.
The statute in force in the District is that of Maryland, passed in 1715, c. 23. The act, as regards personal actions, is substantially the same as that of 21 James I. It commences with a preamble, as follows: “Forasmuch as nothing can be more essential to the peace and tranquillity of this province than the quieting the estates of the inhabitants thereof, and for the effecting of which no better measures can be taken than a limitation of time for the commencing of such actions as in the several and respective courts within this province are brought, from the time of the cause of such actions accruing.” It is then enacted, “that all actions of trespass quare clausum fregit, all actions of trespass, detinue, sur trover, or replevin, . . . all actions of account, contract, debt, book, or upon the case, . . . all actions of debt for lending, or contract without specialty, . . . shall be sued or brought by any person or persons within this province, . . . shall be commenced or sued within the time and limitation hereafter expressed, and not after; that is to say, the said actions of account, and the said actions upon the case, upon simple contract, . . . and the said actions for debt, detinue, and replevin . . . within three years ensuing the cause of such action, and not after; ____.” 1 Kilty’s Laws, April, 1715, c. 23. There is nothing in any part of the act to restrain the generality of this language: “all [enumerated] actions sued or brought by any person or persons within this province, . . . shall be commenced within three years.” Corporations are “persons” in the law. There is no apparent reason why they should not be included in the statute. It is conceded that private corporations are included. On what ground, then, can municipal corporations be excluded? Not on the ground that they are not “persons,” for that would exclude private corporations. They are, therefore, within the terms of the law.
- Are they not also within the spirit and reason of the law? 11*11 They are certainly within the reason of the preamble. It is just as much for the public interest and tranquillity that municipal corporations should be limited in the time of bringing suits as that individuals or private corporations should be. The reason stated in the preamble for the passage of the law applies to all; and, moreover, it shows that the objects of the law are beneficent ones, and, therefore, that it should be liberally construed. It cannot apply to the sovereign power, of course. No restrictive laws apply to the sovereign, unless so expressed. And especially no laws affecting a right on the ground of neglect or laches, because neglect and laches cannot be imputed to him. And it matters not whether the sovereign be an individual monarch, or a republic or state. The principle applies to all sovereigns. The reason usually assigned for this prerogative is, that the sovereign is not answerable for the delinquencies of his agents. But whatever the true reason may be, such is the general law — such the universal law, except where it is expressly waived. The privilege, however, is a prerogative one, and cannot be challenged by any person inferior to the sovereign, whether that person be natural or corporate.
It is scarcely necessary to discuss further the question of the applicability of the statute of limitations to a purely municipal corporation when it is embraced within the general terms of the law. It was expressly decided to be applicable in the cases of Kennebunkport v. Smith, 22 Maine, 445; Cincinnati v. First Presbyterian Church, 8 Ohio, 298; Cincinnati v. Evans, 5 Ohio St. 594; St. Charles County v. Powell, 22 Missouri, 525; Armstrong v. Dalton, 4 Devereux, (Law,) 568; and other cases cited in the notes to Wood on Limitations, § 53; and to 2 Dillon on Municipal Corporations, § 668, 3d ed. Judge Dillon, in the section last cited, accurately says: “The doctrine is well understood, that to the sovereign power the maxim, `nullum tempus occurrit regi,‘ applies, and that the United States and the several States are not, without express words, bound by statutes of limitation. Although municipal corporations are considered as public agencies, exercising, in behalf of the State, public duties, there are many cases which 12*12 hold that such corporations are not exempt from the operation of limitation statutes, but that such statutes, at least as respects all real and personal actions, run in favor of and against these corporations in the same manner and to the same extent as against natural persons.” In Evans v. Erie County, 66 Penn. St. 222, 228, Sharswood, J., says: “That the statute of limitations runs against a county or other municipal corporation, we think, cannot be doubted. The prerogative is that of the sovereign alone; nullum tempus occurrit reipublicae. Her grantees, though artificial bodies created by her, are in the same category with natural persons.” See also Dundee Harbour Trustees v. Dougall, 1 Macqueen H.L. Cas. 317. But we forbear to quote further authorities on the subject. We hold the doctrine to be well settled.
What may be the rule in regard to purprestures and public nuisances, by encroachments upon the highways and other public places, it is not necessary to determine. They are generally offences against the sovereign power itself, and, as such, no length of time can protect them. Where the right of property in such places is vested in the municipality, an assertion of that right may or may not be subject to the law of limitations. We express no opinion on that point, since it may be affected by considerations which are not involved in the present case.
The court below, in its opinion on the demurrer, suggests another ground, having relation to the form of the action, on which it is supposed that the plea of the statute of limitations in this case is untenable. It is this, that the action is founded on a statute, and that the statute of limitations does not apply to actions founded on statutes or other records, or specialties, but only to such as are founded on simple contract or on tort. We think, however, that the court is in error in supposing that the present action is founded on the statute. It is an action on the case upon an implied assumpsit arising out of the defendant’s breach of a duty imposed by statute, and the required performance of that duty by the plaintiff in consequence. This raised an implied obligation on the part of the defendant to reimburse and pay to the plaintiff the moneys 13*13 expended in that behalf. The action is founded on this implied obligation, and not on the statute, and is really an action of assumpsit. The fact that the duty which the defendant failed to perform was a statutory one, does not make the action one upon the statute. The action is clearly one of those described in the statute of limitations. The case of Carroll v. Green, 92 U.S. 509, is strongly in point. That was a bill against stockholders of an insolvent bank to enforce their liability for double the amount of their stock, according to the provisions of the charter. It was held by this court, that the liability of the stockholders arose from their acceptance of the charter, and their implied promise to fulfil its requirements, and that the legal remedy to enforce it was an action on the case, to which the statute of limitations would apply; and, hence, that it applied to a bill in equity founded on the same obligation. To the same effect is the case of Beatty’s Administrators v. Burnes’s Administrators, 8 Cranch, 98, where an action for money had and received was brought, under the Maryland act of 1791, against a party who had received from the United States payment for land situated in the District, which land was claimed by the plaintiff to belong to him. This court held that, inasmuch as the form of the action was covered by the statute of limitations of Maryland, it could be pleaded in bar, notwithstanding the action was given by the statute of 1791. So, in McCluny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270, 277, it was held that the statute of limitations of Ohio was pleadable to an action on the case brought against a receiver of the land office to recover damages for his refusing to enter the plaintiff’s application in the books of his office for certain lands in his district. It was contended that such a case could not have been contemplated by the legislature; but the court held that the action was within the terms of the statute, and that this was sufficient. Many more cases might be cited to the same point, but it is wholly unnecessary.
Federal Sovereign Immunity and Public Rights
Beyond the case or controversy requirement that is rooted in the text of Article III, two extratextual concepts have limited the role of the Article III courts under the separation of powers doctrine. The first is sovereign immunity— a traditional doctrine, transplanted from English to American soil, holding that the sovereign cannot be sued without its consent. In a series of cases tracing as far back as Cohens v. Virginia (1821), the Supreme Court has affirmed that the Constitution, although it nowhere mentions this doctrine and although Article III provides for federal jurisdiction in cases to which the United States is a party, presupposes the sovereign immunity of the United States.
Beyond the doctrine of sovereign immunity, a sundry category of so‐called public rights cases has also been viewed as lying beyond the historically intended scope of Article III. The concept of a public right is notoriously vague, shifting, and elusive; it is as often employed to avoid as to advance analysis. But core historical examples can be identified. These include disputes arising from coercive exercises of government power outside of the criminal law, such as the seizure of alleged contraband, and claims of entitlement to governmentally provided benefits. Although capable of being assigned to Article III courts, public rights cases have not been understood to require judicial resolution, and have often been assigned by Congress to decision makers who lack Article III’s safeguards of adjudicatory independence. These non‐Article III adjudicators have included administrative agencies, officials of the executive branch, and judges of so‐called legislative courts who serve for a term of years rather than enjoying the tenure during good behavior guaranteed to the Article III judiciary.
Congressional Control of Federal Jurisdiction
Although permitted by Article III to define the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts and to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, Congress was at the center of early controversies over whether federal courts should be vested with jurisdiction to decide all cases involving questions of federal law. The Removal Act of 1875 settled these doubts in favor of full federal question jurisdiction. The most significant statutes affecting the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction at present have authorized the Court to choose which cases to decide. At the founding of the republic, the number of appeals was sufficiently small so that the Supreme Court could decide all of the cases in which its jurisdiction was lawfully invoked. Today, the volume is so large that the Court can no longer function in this way, and it generally selects those cases that it regards as most interesting and important (see Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act).
The most perplexing question surrounding Congress’s Article III power to define the federal courts’ jurisdiction involves the use of that power to insulate arguably unconstitutional action from federal judicial review. Although old Supreme Court cases suggest otherwise, Professor Henry Hart, in a famous commentary that relies on the structure and spirit of the constitutional plan, terms it “preposterous” that the Article III power to control jurisdiction could be relied on to nullify constitutional rights. Despite a raging academic debate, there are few if any modern cases in which Congress has actually enacted legislation with this purpose or effect.
YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE ORGANIC ACT OF 1871
THIS IS THE PDF HERE: DCOA-1871
A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875
Statutes at Large, 41st Congress, 3rd Session
|A Century of Lawmaking | Higher Quality Image (TIFF – 79K)|
|A Century of Lawmaking | Higher Quality Image (TIFF – 79K)|