from them, have, as already remarked, been repeatedly and unvaryingly
propounded from this bench. Beginning with the earliest decisions of
this court, we have the cases of Bingham _v._ Cabot et al., (3 Dallas,
382;) Turner _v._ Eurille, (4 Dallas, 7;) Abercrombie _v._ Dupuis et
al., (1 Cranch, 343;) Wood _v._ Wagnon, (2 Cranch, 9;) The United
States _v._ The brig Union et al., (4 Cranch, 216;) Sullivan _v._ The
Fulton Steamboat Company, (6 Wheaton, 450;) Mollan et al. _v._
Torrence, (9 Wheaton, 537;) Brown _v._ Keene, (8 Peters, 112,) and
Jackson _v._ Ashton, (8 Peters, 148;) ruling, in uniform and unbroken
current, the doctrine that it is essential to the jurisdiction of the
courts of the United States, that the facts upon which it is founded
should appear upon the record. Nay, to such an extent and so
inflexibly has this requisite to the jurisdiction been enforced, that
in the case of Capron _v._ Van Noorden, (2 Cranch, 126,) it is
declared, that the plaintiff in this court may assign for error his
own omission in the pleadings in the court below, where they go to the
jurisdiction. This doctrine has been, if possible, more strikingly
illustrated in a later decision, the case of The State of Rhode Island
_v._ The State of Massachusetts, in the 12th of Peters.

In this case, on page 718 of the volume, this court, with reference to
a motion to dismiss the cause _for want of jurisdiction_, have said:
"_However late this objection has been made, or may be made, in any
cause in an inferior or appellate court of the United States_, it must
be considered and decided before any court can move one farther step
in the cause, as any movement is necessarily to exercise the
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power to hear and determine the
subject-matter in controversy between the parties to a suit; to
adjudicate or exercise any judicial power over them. The question is,
whether on the case before the court their action is judicial or
extra-judicial; with or without the authority of law to render a
judgment or decree upon the rights of the litigant parties. A motion
to dismiss a cause pending in the courts of the United States, is not
analogous to a plea to the jurisdiction of a court of common law or
equity in England; there, the superior courts have a general
jurisdiction over all persons within the realm, and all causes of
action between them. It depends on the subject-matter, whether the
jurisdiction shall be exercised by a cou