[85] Eberly _v._ Moore, 24 How. 147 (1861); Arkadelphia Milling Co. _v._
St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 249 U.S. 134 (1919).
[86] Gagnon _v._ United States, 193 U.S. 451, 458 (1904).
[87] 2 Wall. 123, 128-129 (1864).
[88] 253 U.S. 300 (1920).
[89] Ibid. 312.
[90] Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13 (1857).
[91] 4 Wall. 333 (1867).
[92] Ibid. 378-380. For an extensive treatment of disbarment and
American and English precedents thereon, _see_ Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S.
265 (1883).
[93] Reorganization of the Judiciary, Hearings on S. 1392; 75th Cong.,
1st sess., 1937, Pt. 3, p. 491. Justices Van Devanter and Brandeis
approved the letter. For earlier proposals to have the Court sit in
divisions, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of
the Supreme Court, pp. 81-83, (New York, 1928).
[94] 1 Stat. 73-74, Sec. 2-3.
[95] Ibid. 73, 74-76; Sec. 4-5.
[96] 2 Stat. 89.
[97] 2 Stat. 132. For a general account of the events leading to the
acts of 1801 and 1802, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The
Business of the Supreme Court; a study in the federal judicial system
(New York, 1928), pp. 25-32. This book also contains an excellent
account of the organization and reorganization of the judiciary by
statute from time to time. For another account of the acts of 1801 and
1802 _see_ Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History
(Boston, Rev. ed., 1932), 189-215.
[98] 1 Cr. 299, 309 (1803).
[99] 38 Stat. 208, 219-221.
[100] Prior to the act of 1913 Congress had voted to abolish the
Commerce Court, but President Taft vetoed the bill which converted the
Commerce Court judges into ambulatory circuit judges. For a general
account of the abolition of the Commerce Court, _see_ Felix Frankfurter
and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court (New York, 1928),
pp. 166-173.
[101] Evans _v._ Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
[102] 268 U.S. 501 (1925).
[103] 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
[104] Ibid. 278-282.
[105] Ibid. 282.
[106] 289 U.S. 516, 526 (1933).
[107] 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
[108] 36 Stat. 539 (1910). For the legislative history of the Commerce
Court _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the
Supreme Court (New York, 1928), pp. 155-164.
[109] 56 Stat. 23, 31-33.
[110] In Lockerty _v._ Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), the limitations on
the use of injunctions, except the prohibition against interlocutory
decrees, was unanimously sustained.
|