The American Judiciary | Page 3

Dyson v. Rice, Exchange Bank v. Rich, Upshur County v. Ripley, McVeigh v. Robbins' Case Robertson v. Baldwin Robinson, Ex parte Royall, Ex parte Rumsey v. New York and New England R. R. Co. Russell, Christmas v. Rutgers v. Waddington
Sanderson v. Penn. Coal Co. Sandford, Dred Scott v. Saunders, Ogden v. Scott v. Sandford Seligman, Burgess v. Shepherd, State v. Sheve, U. S. v. Siebold, Ex parte Sims' Case Slaughter, Groves v. Smith, Fish v. Smith, Hill v. Smith, U. S. v. Smyth v. Ames Social Mfg. Co., Merriman v. South Bethlehem, Myers v. Sparf v. U. S. St. Louis Transit Co., Eckrich v. Stack v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R. R. Co. Stanley v. Colt Stanley, U. S. v. Stanton, Georgia v. Starr v. Pease State v. Baxter State v. Bulkley State v. Cunningham State v. Houser State v. Johnson State v. Judges State v. Lee State v. Main State v. Morrill State v. Shepherd State v. Travelers' Insurance Co. State v. Ward State v. Worden State, Brooks v. Stephens, petitioner Stifle, Drehman v. Stone, Irvine v. Stonington, Goshen v. Swift v. Tyson
Tacoma Railway and Power Co., Coler v. Tassel's Case Taylor v. Beckham Tennessee, Coleman v. Terry v. McDaniel Thayer, Boyd v. The Genesee Chief The Grapeshot The La Ninfa The Lottawanna The Moses Taylor The Schooner Little Charles, U. S. v. The Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson, The Thompson, Kilbourn v. Topeka, Loan Association v. Trademark Cases Travelers' Insurance Co., State v. Trevett v. Weeden Tua v. Carriere Turner, City of South Bend v. Tyson, Swift v.
Union River Logging Co., Noble, v. United States v. Debs United States v. Griswold United States v. Joint Traffic Association United States v. Klein United States v. Nash United States v. Perkins United States v. The Schooner Little Charles United States v. Reese United States v. Robbins United States v. Sheve United States v. Smith United States v. Sparf United States v. Stanley United States v. Wilson United States v. Worrall United States, Boyd v. United States, Coffin v. United States, Dorr v. United States, Kepner v. United States, Mormon Church v. United States, Northern Securities Co. v. Upshur County v. Rich
Vanhorne's lessee v. Dorrance Vincent v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association Virginia, Cohens v. Virginia, Paul v. Voorhies, M'Kim v.
Waddington, Rutgers v. Walkinshaw, Katz v. Walton, Holmes v. Ward v. Conn. Pipe Mfg. Co., Ward, State v., Warmoth, Kellogg v., Waterbury, French v., Webb, People v., Weeden, Trevett v., Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co., Wheaton v. Peters, Wheeler, Ohio and Mississippi R. R. Co., v., Wheeler's Appeal, Wilcox v. Heywood, Wilcox, Griffin v., Williams, Blair v., Williams, Regents v., Wilson, U. S. v., Woleott, Diggs v., Woodward, Dartmouth College, v., Worcester v. Georgia, Worden, State v., Worrall, U. S. v.
Additional cases cited in Second edition.
Janvrin v. Revere Water Co., Revere Water Co., Janvrin, v., O'Brien's Petition, Seery v. Waterbury, Waterbury, Seery v.
* * * * *



PART I
THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE
JUDICIAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES
* * * * *

CHAPTER I
ENGLISH ORIGIN AND EARLY DEVELOPMENT OF THE AMERICAN JUDICIARY
No government can live and flourish without having as part of its system of administration of civil affairs some permanent human force, invested with acknowledged and supreme authority, and always in a position to exercise it promptly and efficiently, in case of need, on any proper call. It must be permanent in its character. Only what is permanent will have the confidence of the people. It must always be ready to act on the instant. The unexpected is continually happening, and it is emergencies that put governments to the test.
The judiciary holds this position in the United States. The institutions which underlie and characterize it, both of the United States and of each of the States, considered by itself,[Footnote: I do not except Louisiana, for trial by jury and other institutions derived from the common law have profoundly affected her whole judicial system.] are the outgrowth of those of the thirteen English colonies on the Atlantic coast, which declared their independence in 1776.
The colonial charters, whether of the proprietary, provincial or republican type, were all equally charters for Englishmen, based on the common law of the English people. So far as they granted legislative power, it was generally declared that it should be exercised in conformity, so far as might be practicable, with the laws of England. The proviso to this effect in the roving patent given by Queen Elizabeth to Sir Walter Raleigh may be taken as a type: "so always as the said statutes, lawes, and ordinances may be, as neere as conveniently may be, agreeable to the forme of the lawes, statutes, government, or pollicie of England."[Footnote: Poore, "Charters and Constitutions," II, 1381.]
In the Southern New England colonies, when first settled, the common law