Ibid. 361.
[4] United States _v._ Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691 (1832).
[5] General Investment Co. _v._ New York Central R. Co., 271 U.S. 228,
230 (1926).
[6] For distinctions between judicial power and jurisdiction _see_
Williams _v._ United States, 289 U.S. 553, 566 (1933); and the dissent
of Justice Rutledge in Yakus _v._ United States, 321 U.S. 414, 467-468
(1944).
[7] Michaelson _v._ United States, 266 U.S. 42 (1924).
[8] McIntire _v._ Wood, 7 Cr. 504 (1813); Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cr. 75
(1807).
[9] Wayman _v._ Southard, 10 Wheat. 1 (1825)
[10] Gumbel _v._ Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888).
[11] Ex parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300 (1920).
[12] Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 378 (1867).
[13] Chisholm _v._ Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793); Kentucky _v._ Dennison,
24 How. 66, 98 (1861) contains a review of authorities on this point.
[14] Mayor of Nashville _v._ Cooper, 6 Wall. 247, 252 (1868); Cary _v._
Curtis, 3 How. 236 (1845); Shelden _v._ Sill, 8 How. 441 (1850); Kline
_v._ Burke Construction Co., 260 U.S. 226 (1922). _See also_ the cases
discussed under the heading of the Power of Congress to regulate the
jurisdiction of the lower federal courts, _infra_, p. 616.
[15] 2 Dall. 409 (1792).
[16] His initial effort was in United States _v._ Ferreira, 13 How. 40
(1852). This case involved the validity of an act of Congress directing
the judge of the territorial court of Florida to examine and adjudge
claims of Spanish subjects against the United States and to report his
decisions with evidence thereon to the Secretary of the Treasury who in
turn was to pay the award to the claimant if satisfied that the
decisions were just and within the terms of the treaty of cession. After
Florida became a State and the territorial court a district court of the
United States, the Supreme Court refused to entertain an appeal under
the statute for want of jurisdiction to review nonjudicial proceedings.
The duties required by the act, it was said "are entirely alien to the
legitimate functions of a judge or court of justice, and have no analogy
to the general or special powers ordinarily and legally conferred on
judges or courts to secure the due administration of the laws." Ibid.
51.
[17] 2 Wall. 561 (1865).
[18] 117 U.S. 697 Appx. (1864). _See also_ De Groot _v._ United States,
5 Wall. 419 (1867) and United States _v._ Klein, 13 Wall. 128 (1872),
which sustained Supreme Court revision after the jurisdiction of the
Court of
|