| OCR Text |
Show ARKANSAS RIVER LITIGATION 493 general grant of legislative power it has become an accepted constitu- tional rale that this is a government of enumerated powers. # * * * * * * On the other hand, in Article III, which treats of the judicial de- partment-and this is important for our present consideration-we find that section 1 reads that "the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." By this is granted the entire judicial power of the Nation. Section 2, which provides that "the judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States," etc., is not a limitation nor an enumeration. It is a definite declara- tion, a provision that the judicial power shall extend to-that is, shall include-the several matters particularly mentioned, leaving unre- stricted the general grant of the entire judicial power. There may be, of course, limitations on that grant of power, but if there are any they must be expressed, for otherwise the general grant would vest in the courts all the judicial power which the new Nation was capable of exercising. * * * * * * * Speaking generally, it may be observed that the judicial power of a nation extends to all controversies justiciable in their nature, the parties to which or the property involved in which may be reached by judicial process, and when the judicial power of the United States was vested in the Supreme and other courts all the judicial power which the Nation was capable of exercising was vested in these tribunals, and unless there be some limitations expressed in the Constitution it must be held to embrace all controversies of a justiciable nature arising within the territorial limits of the Nation, no matter who may be the parties thereto. This general truth is not inconsistent with the de- cisions that no. suit or action can be maintained against the Nation in any of its courts without its consent, for they only recognized the obvious truth that a nation is not without its consent subject to the controlling action of any of its instrumentalities or agencies. The creature cannot rule the creator. Kawananakoa v. Polyblanh, Trustee <&?.,,20&U.S.349. * * * Thesa considerations lead to the propositions that when a legislative power is claimed for the National Government the question is whether that power is one of those granted by the Constitution, either in terms or by necessary implication, whereas in respect to judicial functions the question is whether there be any limitations expressed in the Con- stitution on the general grant of national power. We may also notice a matter in respect thereto referred to at length in Missouri v. lUmois^^ Chicago District, 180 U.S. 208, 220. The ninth article of the Articles of Confederation provided that "the United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States, concerning boundary, juris- diction or any other cause whatever." In the early drafts of the Con- stitution [provision was made giving to the Supreme Court "juris- |
