*1 11, by- 1918.8 These provisos November prior to did ” “ tp .the enlarge incurred Secre- referring obligations “ losses net have been suf- tary’s authority.to pay such as contrary, their to make fered.” was clear purpose On the alleged, Secretary were must expenditures that where actually had been made be that therefor payment satisfied that, agreement or .a to therefor. pay theré was valid in Wilbur that
When this stated case de- Court 1919, loss March shall 2, as of termining there has taken into account the amount interest which for money been incurred relator by or borrowed paid ” used mean interest lost,” incurred was to the word date, as The lan- paid. on as'well interest accrued that correctly by was construed the Sec- guage opinion award, limited additional on retary he account when $44,451.45. interest,
Reversed. STATES.* O’DONOGHUE v. UNITED Argued April 12, May 1933.—Decided 1933. No. 729. following: provided “And further Among provisos are the Secretary paid by said unless it shall allowed or no claim shall be Secretary expenditures satisfaction the said 'appear to the good obligations so incurred the claimant were made so made or chrome, upon property which contained either manganese, faith for or quantities to im tungsten in sufficient be of commercial pyrites, "or further, paid portance. And'provided that no claim shall be unless moneys Secretary were appear the satisfaction of said shall subsequent obligations April incurred sixth, were nine invested . . teen hundred and seventeen. .” * Together with Hitz United States. No.
n Flannery, with John S.'
Messrs. John W. Davis and Daniel W. George Hamilton and whom Messrs. E. O’Don- Jr., brief, plaintiffs. oghue, were on the *7 Thacher, Solicitor General whom with Messrs. Wm. W. Reeder, Scott, Griswold, Robert P. Erwin N. and H. brief, Brian Holland were on the for the United States, next this case and the following. case
-525 opinion delivered the Sutherland of the Justice Mr. Court.
These cases are here on from certificates the Court of They Claims. involve the questions, same argued were together bar, may at the well be disposed byof opinion. same
Daniel W. O’Donoghue justice an associate of the Supreme Court of the District Columbia, having been duly to that appointed position by the President, by and with the advice and consent the Senate. He duly qualified justice as on February such 29, 1932, has ever since been engaged performance duties of the office. theAt his appointment entry time upon his duties, salary by his was fixed act of (c. 6, 919) Stat. $10,000 at the rate of per year, paid was him until June 30, 1932' William Hitz is justice an associate Court Appeals of of Columbia, the District having ap- been pointed on December 5, 1930, by President, and later confirmed February On 13, 1931, duly Senate. he qualified as such justice associate and has ever since been engaged performing the duties of his office. By the of Congress already act to, salary referred his was at fixed of $12,500 year. rate per This amount he received Until 30, June 1932.
By Legislative of June Appropriation Act (c. 314, 401) 47 Stat. 382, Congress provided as follows: During year ending fiscal Sec. June 30,1933— 105..
“(d) In the case following persons the rate compensation is reduced as follows: If more than $1,000 per annum $10,000 but than less per annum, cen- per 8V3 tum;. if $10,000 annum or per more, but less $12,000 than per annum, per centum; $12,000 if per annum more, less $15,000 than per annum, per if centum;
526 $20,000 an- mote, per than but less $15,000 annum or per $20,000 more, if or centum; per annum 20 15 num, per centum.” per
' 30, 1933, “; ending the fiscal June year Düring 106. Sec. judges whose judges (except of all "pay com- retired Constitution, diminished not, may under pensation office) the retired pay -continuance during their enlisted) personnel (except and other of all commissioned Coast Corps, Guard, Coast the, Navy, Marine Arir^y, and the Public Service, Lighthouse Survey, and Geodetic If more than reduced as follows: shall be Health Service $10,000.pér annum, less than but annum $1,000 per 8% less $10,000 more, annum or but than per if centum; per $12,000 per more, or centum; if annum $12,000, 10 per $15,- 12 if centum; annum, per $15,000 per than but less $20,000, 15 per less than more, or annum 000 per centum» more, per $20,000 annum per if centum; any so as to reduce rate operate shall This section $1,000 per than less pay to of retired annum.” Salary “Special Reductions” (cid:127) fiscal, ending June During year (a) 107. Séc. 1933— judges all pay (except and retired the salaries
“(5) under the may not, Consti- compensation whose judges in office), their continuance during tution, be diminished $10,- exceeding are at rate pay or retired salaries if such $10,000 per the rate of annum.” shall be at annum, per General Comptroller United. 1932, the July, In. Supreme and the Appeals held that States Court ” legislative are courts District Columbia Court of ” judges whose constitutional hot entitled the n Ill, of1, Art. protection .provides: *10 judicial of power The the United States shall'be vested in Supreme Court, one in such and inferior Courts as the may from Congress time to time ordain and establish. Judges both of the inferior Supreme and shall Courts, hold during good behavior, their offices shall, and at stated times, receive for services, their compensation, shall not be diminished during their in continuance office.”
Thereupon, disbursing the officer Department the pursuant Justice, ruling the the Comptroller Gen- cent, eral, reduced annual compensation by 10 in per cent, case O’Donoghue, by Justice and per in of Justice Hitz, case and over protest their paid of July, them the months to December, 1932, inclusive, compensation their at this reduced rate.
- January 19,1933, On suits were brought in the Court Claims to recover the amount of the deductions which been made up had and enforced to that time. suits based
These the contention that the rul- ing Comptroller General, and the deductions made in thereof, are in pursuance violation of provisions of the appropriation just quoted, act because 107 specifi- § cally excepts operation from their judges whose com- pensation may nbt, under the Constitution, be diminished during their office,” continuance in and plaintiffs these judges. are such It is averred petitions that ruling Comptroller General and the resulting de- ductions III, 1, of contravene Art, § plaintiffs appointed since were to serve during good be- and to compensation havior receive a which constitu- tionally during diminished cannot their continuance in It is further averred that the Supreme Court office. and Court of Appeals the District are vested by acts of Congress jurisdiction with all the and all the power con- ferred on the States by the Constitution under Ill; jurisdiction that Art. such power have been by Appeals exercised the Court from its organization its of the District and Supreme Court the govern- from the establishment predecessor-courts of these courts organization therefore, that, ment; thereby consti- Ill, of Art. acted virtue Congress States; of the United inferior courts said tuted and- enlarged has the extent only /to body act under of said courts did'that powers extended none less they áre Ill; and than Art. any other of their because, try reason inferior courts süch location n at Í, 8* Congress, under Art. government, seát of *11 jurisdiction them and powers upon 'has conferred which.it . Each upon plaintiff other federal courts. 'may not confer a result may to institute suit a reluctance avers it a to himself, duty to but that he feels benefit personal bar, of of court, to the the District the citizens the. of States have people and to. the United Columbia, the defined and settled important of these courts- the status possible. as soon as to the the petitions, upon Government demurred others,' that of justices the the District ground, among “ Appeals-are Court of not
Supreme judges Court and pf ” 1 Ill of meaning § inferior the of of Art. within “ therefore, Constitution, are, judges whose the and not, the Constitution, under be di- compensation may office,” continuance in within the during theV minished of appropriation 107 act hereinbefore meaning §of quoted. of state of the record Court Claims certi-
Upon questions which it desires following instruc- fied the * Congress power shall “The have I, 8, cl. 17: To ... Art. § legislation whatsoever, in all cases over such district exclusive exercise may, by particular square) exceeding as cession miles (not ten States government Congress, become the seat of the acceptance of and the- authority States, places and to exercise like over all United of the legislature of of the the State in by consent which the purchased magazines, be, arsenals, dockyards, erection of forte, for the shall same buildings.” needful other (a) February tions, under Act 13, 1925, of the c.. Stat.'936,'939: “ I. Does Section III, Article of tite Constitution of apply Supreme States [and Court to. Appeals] the Court District of Columbia and compensation forbid reduction of the Justices ” n during thereof their office? continuance compensation Supreme II. Can the of a Justice of the Appeals] [or Court Court District Co- lawfully during lúmbia be diminished his continuance in office?” entering upon subject,
Before consideration is well to observe has not undertaken legislation any under to assume or indicate review meaning provision'in view of the of the constitutional open question volved, but has left whether these judges whose, judges compensation may or' others during not, diminished their under duty, continuance office.” This relieves from us always passing upion a delicate one, constitutional ity congressional only requires act,- us to ascer meaning application tain and determine the *12 , provision, by constitutional to which determination, the Congress, plain immediately of intent the act will accom say, That modate itself. is to neither the nor terms in only application statute, tent of the the of made it by Comptroller by General, the will be affected the1con put upon we struction which shall the constitutional n limitation. by questions propounded The court find below, no any adjudication in conclusive answer of this court; and materially arriving us in assist it will at a correct determi- great first underlying we shall consider the pur- nation if pose of framers Constitution had in mind .incorporate' them to and which led in that instrument the permanent respect provision of the tenure of office 530. of' compensation of the undiminishable character
and the'
judges.
govern-
of
distributing the powers
departments—
separate
distinct
threé
and
creates
ment,
This
judicial.
the'
executive, and
legislative,
or of
of convenience
a .matter
merely
is not
separation
vital,
object is basic
Its
governmental mechanism.
Islands,
U.S.
Philippine
Springer v.
namely,
essentially different-
of' these
commingling
preclude
And
ob-
hands.
this
in-the same
government
powers
controlling bedause
apparent
none the less
is
ject
an occasional
in the Constitution
found
to be
there
given department
a-
conferring upon
specific provision
nature,-
their
would otherwise
which,
functions,
certain
of another.
scope
general
powers
fall within .the
generally
emphasize
rather 'to
serve
exceptions
Such
plan’
inviolate character
to-separate'the
depart
thus
several
it.be.important
If
and restrict them to the exercise
government
ments of
follow's,
logical corollary,
as a
powers,
their appointed
department
that each
should be kept
important,
equally
n
independent not
independent
completely
others —
common,
cooperate
shall not
they
to the
in the sense
into effect
carrying
purposes
Constitu
endmf
sense
the acts
each
tion, but
shall
never
or
subjected, directly
or
by,.
indirectly,
controlled
to,
influence of either
the other
coercive
departments.
of the framers of the
Wilson, one
Constitution
James
one
his law
court,
justice
said that
lectures
eách
independence
department
required
its
be free from
should
remotest
proceedings
influence,
either of
the other
indirect,
direct
two powers.”
Wilsón,
Works of James
Andrews, The
(1896), Yol. 1,
importance
such independence
367. And
p.
was
*13
by Mr.
similarly recognized
Justice Story when he said
other,
in
to each
reference
the departments
neither
Of
in
directly
indirectly,
or
an overruling
possess,
ought
their
"powers.”1
in
administration of
fluence
respective
on
4th
ed.,
530. To
same
Story
(Madison)
48.
Federalist
No.
And Massa
effect, The
see
Mellon,
In light and foregoing honored —time never extravagant say discredited —it is not to that there federal judge nothing rests affected less than upon every a any attempt, to withstand duty directly indirectly to diminish this contravention of com- pensation, if private advantage which, his for. — were in the interest all, might willingly forego he —but as .adopted an essential preserving unimpaired safeguard admin- an independent judicial continuing guaranty was this the whole people, istration the benefit of for. .534 impelled Taney Justice protest
motive that Chief to attempt Treasury Department to exact against an act compensation under judges tax 1862, 472. 119, 86, Stat. c. passed Gore, supra, 257-259. 157 U.S., 701; pp. Evans v. App. as far Appeals Yirginia, Court of judges of the duty the same to discharge of directed as back assembly a remon respectful members state ” reducing against had the effect of an act which strance In the (Va.) 135, 141. Call compensation. their judges these said (pp. course that remonstrance 145): independence necessity and propriety
“The their in reason the nature of- judges evident government decide between fice; they since if contending citizens; and, as well as between people, be either, corrupt may on influence dependent they preju- innocent popular sacrificing apprehended, persecu- subjecting poor dice; and oppression more, *16 ex- forcibly, to rich. And this tion the by applies whom, legislature; branch, the on dependence a clude a For a . . . party. is itself of impeachment, in cases our gov- the founders of the precautions vain would be if re- liberty, legislature, though the to secure ernment judicial offices, the tenure of are changing from strained resignation by to reducing salaries liberty compel to at copper, ...” as it is public duty, considerations of Actuated like the brought present suits. these averred, plaintiffs Court and of the Court of Supreme the judges The equal are of rank and District of of the Columbia Appeals inferior other courts the federal those of with power spirit the and of the and reason (cid:127)system, plainly within intent, and within also its unless provision; compensation in or thereU^something the the charac- District, or its relations to the organization or ter general or in government, character the courts precludes themselves Indeed, which that conclusion, forth,,- reasons which have been set and which impelled limitation, of the constitutional adoption apply with even force greater courts than to District courts of the United lpcated elsewhere,. inferior States because of the former courts judges con- are closer with, tact more to the immediately influences open of,.the legislative department, more and exercise a exten- sive jurisdiction in affecting cases operations of general government its various departments, This court held repeatedly has that the territorial “ ” national, courts, legislative created in virtue of the or IV, under Art. sovereignty 3, 2, Constitu- cl. vesting Congress the tion, power dispose of and all regulations make needful rules respecting the terri- tory other property belonging United States”; they and that are not invested with any part ju- power dicial defined in the third article of the Constitu- And rule, tion. as if affects the no is' territories, ' open to Do longer question. the courts of District occupy Columbia a like situation in virtue of the pie- nary Congress, under power Art. 1, § cl. 17, Td exer- legislation cise exclusive in all cases whatsoever, over such (not exceeding ten district miles square) as niay, by of particular cession ’States and the acceptance of Con- become seat the government of gress, the United inquiry This requires . . .”? States a consideration, of the reasons- first, rest decisions' territorial courts. respect authority upon which all the later cases rest Canter,
American Insurance Co. v. Pet. 546, where *17 by was delivered opinion Chief Justice Marshall. The there was pertinent question whether the judicial power described in of the United'States Ill Art. of the Consti- in the superior vested courts of tution the Territory of 536 “The negative. in the answered was
Florida; Florida,” said, the court Courts Superior of the Judges then, four years. These Courts, their hold offices judicial in which the Courts, power constitutional are not general on the government, the Constitution conferred They incapable receiving are it. deposited. can be in Courts, created legislative gen- virtue of are They in sovereignty which exists right government, eral clause which enables Congress of that make in virtue regulations, respecting rules the territory all needful jurisdiction States. The United with belonging invested, .part is not a they judicial of that which 3d article which is Constitu- power defined by Congress, is conferred execution tion, which body possesses powers over the general those United States.” territories accepted and was view followed Benner This v. 235, 242-244; Clinton Porter, v. Englebrecht, 9 How. Toombs, 18 Hornbuckle v. 434, 447; 648, Wall. Wall. 655; Martin, 90, 98; Reynolds 95 U.S. v. States, v. United Good Panama, City The 145, 154; 101 U.S. U.S. 453, 460; States, 141 U.S. United v. seq.; McAllister et McMillan, 165 U.S. States v. 510; and United Romeu 358, 368. Todd, 206 U.S. for these foundation decisions in A sufficient respect of tois be found in the courts transitory territorial char- governments. In the territorial acter the McAllister court, after stating supra, case, Con- the independence secured had judges stitution might judicial vested the power express by an provision States that they should good behavior and during their office compensation hold during their not be diminished continuance therein, should 187-188): (pp. absence from the Con- concluded —“ guaranties for territorial such judges stitution was no fact organization due to of govern- doubt the. *18 Territories was but for the ments would temporary, .and when the Territories became superseded States of the be in the concurring opinion And of Mr. Union.” Justice Bidwell, in Downes 244, 293, White these U.S. “ are to growout presumably said decisions ephem-; territorial government.” nature a eral connection, peculiar In this language of the terri Art. cl. of the clause, IV, torial § should “ that is By given noted. clause .power to 6f all- needful rules dispose and make and regulations or territory other respecting property belonging to the “ Literally, States.” territory,” United as there word “ since used, signifies property, is language terri “ but or tory property,” territory or other property.” an evident thus arises difference There between the words “ territory” territory” ánd “a of the United States.' merely designates particular former part or parts imperially earth’s surface —the extensive real es holdings nation; latter a governmental tate happened which to be called1'a subdivision “territory,” “ ” as well could quite have been which called but a colony “ The Territories,” it province.” was said in Na County Yankton, 101 Bank v. U.S. 129, 133, tional subdivisions outlying dominion political Since the States.” Constitution provides for the by Congress new states (Art. IV, 3, admission 1), cl. may be said properly outlying it continental of which the domain, United States was public pro from was, beginning, destined for prietor, admission into the Union; or states a state that as as a pre toward foreordained step liminary end —to tide over ineligibility Congress, from period time to time, — governments, territorial the existence of created limited necessarily thé period püpilage. was In that unreasonable to is not conclude view the makers never could have Constitution intended to give irreducible compensation office or tenure permanent limited and some during serve who was -judge to a provisional gov a purely under period very brief times jn some cases probably all cases which, ernment during incumbency his cease exist certainly, would *19 the office. governments' has of these character impermanent The “ The said, terri-' it has been Thus,
often been noted. United best,” Nelson v. at pupilage is one of torial state “A under the constitu- territory, States, 112, 115; 30 Fed. state,” is, an inchoate States, the United tion laws of and “ 20 Fed; of the term 305; During 298, parte Morgan, Ex they dependencies are mere Territories, their as pupilage United, States, 18 Wall. Snow v. the States.” 212, 3 Hagan, Pollard’s Lessee v. How. 320. 317, And “ terri temporary them as the 224, the court characterizes . torial governments.” (cid:127) different are status How and.characteristics The clause of the Con- pertinent District of Columbia! 17) cl. on I, 8, power Congress confers stitution (Art. guch legislation . exclusive . . over dis- to “exercise the seat of may government as . . become trict . ... of permanent These are words United States.” District, The the seat of as governmental power. as lasting as the States from government, national is permanent or the union whose capital it was carved which otherwise; been intended could not have it became. It recognized by acceptance 'the act and was thus 130): 1 “. . . the is (§ c. Stat. [District] government of the for the seat accepted permanent hereby United States.” of the clausé, the Territorial clause, District unlike
In
processes
linking
legislative
is no mere
there
domain —the
regulation
public
landed
and
disposal
sovereign
govern-
which transitory
estates
—within
may
con-
pupilage
over
periods
tide
ments
unqualified
stituted,
grant
permanent
an
legisla-
selected
set
apart
tive
over a
area
power
the enduring
which
purposes
general government,
admin-
local affairs is obviously
istration of purely
subordinate
“
”
incidental.
District is not an ephemeral
sub-
“
dominion
States,”
division of the
of the United
outlying
capital
very
but the
heart —of the Union itself, to
—the
”
permanent
abiding
be maintained as
all
place of
and within
supreme
its
departments,
the immense
were
destined to be
powers
general government
for the
great
expanding population
forty-
exerted
states,
beyond
for a
eight
future immeasurable
designed
vision of those who
it.
prophetic
and created
(cid:127)
this District
possesses
Over
the combined
State, government
and of
general
powers
all
Stoutenburgh legislation
possible.”
cases where
Hennick,
141, 147.
The power
U.S.
conferred
Art.
*20
exclude,
I'
is
17, plenary;
cl.
but it does not
in respect
exercise
District,
by Congress
of
of 'the
other appro-
>
body
that
powers'conferred
by the Con-
priate
authorize a denial to the
stitution,- or
inhabitants of any
guaranty
constitutional
not plainly inapplicable., Circuit
Taft,
Judge
court,
afterwards Chief Justice of this
speak-
himself, Judge Lurton,-afterwards
ing
an
jus-
associate
court,
and Judge Hammond,
tice
in Grether v.
Wright,
grant became the granted pow- In the same article which a nation. government 'its seat of legislation ers over of exclusive which, make na- the other great powers conferred all on the credit money to borrow tion, power including He would a strict construction- States. be the United the. ist, indeed, deny congress exercise who should and of that of organizing in furtherance this latter power gov- at the seat of local maintaining government a proper one and the purpose, for a national is ernment. Each other.” of the in aid may used Wilson, 127 U.S. 550: Callan Constitution history nothing is “There justify the assertion amendments original of the lawfully bemay deprived of this District that the people guarantees of the constitutional any benefit of privilege property especially and liberty, life, — cases.” in criminal by jury trial constantly mind to bear important It the original two of up portions District was made taken of-the Union Union, and was not o.ut, states en were thereto its inhabitants Prior cession. by the immunities- of guaranties, the rights, titled all to have their right which was the among héard and deter Constitution arising, under cases under, created by federal courts mined vested.with III. it is not conferred Art. think by, judicial power We the cession them of stripped assume that reasonable to very it was intended at the rights, these should be less government people the national seat of *21 an than independent judiciary by fortified the guaranty of the Union. in other parts Bidwell, supra, In U.S. Downes 244.] [162 by Brown, 260-261, Justice at pp. Mr. opinion delivered : is it said part had been of Mary- This District States subject It had been to the Constitu- Virginia. land and part was a of the United The Con- tion, States. irrevocably. it had attached to There are steps stitution never be taken backward. The which can tie bound to Maryland Virginia States of the Constitution without at least dissolved, not be the consent could state governments Federal and to a formal separa- The mere the District of Columbia tion. to cession relinquished the government the Federal authority States, it take did not it out of the United States from under the aegis Constitution. Neither to had ever that construction of ces- party 'the consented before the District was If, off,' sion. set Congress had act, an passed affecting inhabitants, its unconstitutional If it have been void. would done after the was District it would have been equally created, void; words, other could not indirectly by. do carving out the Dis- do trict what could not directly. The District still a part States, remained protected by Constitution. Indeed, it would have been a fanciful con- territor, struction hold that which had been once a of the United States part ceased such by being directly ceded the Federal government.” That the Constitution is in effect in the territories as well as the District has been so often determined in the affirmative that it is no an longer question. open Whether that instrument became operative in virtue force, own formal its or because its extension acts is a Congress, consideration does not affect It is present inquiry. enough the Constitution is in and the question as well force, here, as case territories, simply whether the provisions Ill Art. applicable. relied Because, rea- peculiar they already stated, sons are inapplicable to the tern- *22 they not that inappli- does follow tories, it likewise are the District where these reasons not peculiar cable to do concurring In Justice White opinion the Mr. obtain. the principles Downes certain applicable the case, dealing which we are with enumerated.* situation are 289,'292) Every are (pp. them these: Among function-of the-Constitution, thus derived from being government the everywhere instrument is and at all it follows that in so far as potential provisions applicable. times its territories, In case as in every of the . . other . invoked, is provision instance, Constitution when not arises, which is the Constitution question whether pro- is but whether the for that operative, self-evident, is 'is And then follows, relied on applicable.” vision almost observation quoted, immediately, page already at respect decisions in inapplicability of the Constitution to territorial courts Article third, “ presumably'ephemeral nature a terri- out grow 'government.” torial by Mr. opinion Brown, delivered
In follow- Justice have already which we is said quotation made, it ing 266): (p. hi only judicial power Congress vested is to
“As judges whose shall hold their during offices create necessarily if follows that, Congress behavior, .good courts and appointment the creation authorizes it'mqst time, act independently limited judges of. territory is of' the part meaning States within the Constitution. say case -It sufficient ... [American Canter, supra] has ever since been Co. ac Insurance for the authority proposition the judicial as cepted that- application has of the Constitution- to courts clause no. territories, with respect and that to them created a power wholly has unrestricted it.” the prior review of decisions of exhaustive After an relating matter, following proposi- to the this court stated,as being established: *23 others, were among tions, “ Columbia and the District the 1. That territories judicial clause of the the Consti- States, within not are in cases between citizens of jurisdiction giving tution States; different “ meaning within the States, That not 2. territories are 709, of error Statutes, permitting sec. writs Revised state validity where in cases court the from this question; in drawn is statute District-of Columbia and the territories That the
“3. in is used treaties with foreign word States, as that are ownership, disposition respect the with powers, property; of. inheritance not within the That the territories clause 4. creation the of a providing- Supreme
Constitution Congress may inferior courts as fit to. see such Court (cid:127) establish.” be in point to observed this significant enumeration The distinguish is careful between opinion the those is-that relate both to the territories and the propositions and those Columbia, which' relate to the terri- District' in that when the alone; so court paragraph excepts tories Ill of Art. the operation only from the Constitution equivalent to a it is determination either territories, that subject to the same rule, was District not' of the District had not respect then been question decided. this significant respect' in/
No less decision States, 571, 145 U.S. v. 576. In that case Cross of error a writ would held that not lie to review a' it was Court of Supreme District, sitting in judgment review of conviction of a person of a appellate capital government contended that crime. writ would lie Supreme not because Court'of not District was a court of United States within the intent meaning Stat, February 6, 1889, c. the act cases tried provided capital any which' before court;of judgment final United States” .the could court a writ of error. reviewed this McAllister States, cited in of that con- support v. United was supra, remem- said, . . is to be tention, this court only.” territorial bered that referred to case respect And government the contention a different rejected, being was the writ dismissed on ground. Canter,
In Chief supra, American Insurance Co. v. why Justice reason territorial gave as conclusive ju with the courts vested courts were constitutional *24 Constitution dicial in Art. Ill of the 'designated power is that —“ it.” It not They receiving are of incapable n hard observation, in of respect cburts cre justify this merely ated a to serve purely provisional government and' events; Supreme between the District Court but Appeals, permanent Court establishments —federal of are judicial the federal part and of courts of the United States Klesner, 274 Comm’n Trade v. U.S. Federal system. 145, 154, 156: “ ,the Court of Supreme parallelism The between District, on the of Appeals Court District and the . United and courts of the States the district hand, and one other, in on the the consid- appeals^ of courts the circuit involving among cases what of disposition eration and within, jurisdiction, federal is as regarded be States would complete.” Ferry Claiborne-Annapolis v. see effect, sarhe
To the 390-391. States, 382, 285 U.S. United said, has now been we are unable all that light of 'In reason it can said what basis that upon perceive incapable receiving are the District these courts (cid:127) In. of them we respect 'Art. III. under judicial power they of the United rule that are courts take the true to.be jurisdiction with same as vested States, generally elsewhere the inferior courts located possessed by federal in 2 § of Art. III. enumerated respect the cases “ judicial article is that the provision of this section ” enumerated, it logi- to the and extend cases shall power these cases jurisdiction over where cally follows District, judicial the courts upon conferred facto, ipsó is, receiving it, capable since power, they courts as inferior courts of in such the United vested States. under another Congress, and plenary
The fact these, jurisdic- courts has conferred grant power, action, quasi- causes over tion over non-federal matters, does not affect or administrative' judicial District, Congress possesses In with the dealing question. territory within it belong which powers respect Keller Potomac powers state. v. state, and also Co., words,” 442-443. In other Elec. 261 U.S. authority over a dual said, possesses there court only the courts of the District may District and clothe federal courts jurisdiction powers with :tbf con may a-State authority such as States several with States, Kendall Pet. her fer on courts. have enactments congressional Instances 619 . duties powers placed which conferred been sustained exceptional advi an of the District on. *25 Hoe, Butterworth v. in 112 found are sory character U.S. Duell, and Baldwin States v. 576, U.S. 50, 60; Co., Subject guaranties U.S. 35. to the Howard Co. v. in the original in the amendments and liberty of personal much vest courts power has as Congress variety jurisdiction with a and powers of the District conferring jurisdiction has in on legislature its as a state Co., Line supra, In Prentis v. Coast we Atlantic courts. legis unite sees fit to constitution a state held that when is hand, there single in a judicial powers- and lative of the United Constitution far as the hinder so nothing Illinois, 225.) Dreyer (211 U.S. concerned.’ States is 84.” 71, 83, 187 U.S. jurisdiction of courts defining and creating in
If, it Ill, as were limited to Art. Congress District, with,the other federal the administra- courts, dealing in not con- jurisdiction spoken of could other tive and But the giving plenary- the former. clause upon ferred to. enables the District over legislation power jurisdic- in addition to the federal jurisdiction confer such Ill, exercise under Art. courts which' District tion judicial they recipients are notwithstanding of.the in under, and are States constituted of the United power article. virtue of, that then, Congress, Art.' power
Since has the same under Ill Constitution to ordain and establish inferior states, in the District Columbia as courts federal instance any particular depends whether it has done so inquiry judicial upon power con- same —Does enumerated that article? ferred extend to cases not does, judicial If thus conferred is power legis- affected the additional by congressional cannot be I, Article cl. imposing enacted under lation, duties, which, because special other such courts District, Congress impose to the cannot is limited power The powers' federal elsewhere. two upon inferior for hold- we no reason incompatible; perceive given by District clause power that the ing plenary destroy may operative be used the Constitution where, District, judicial clause within the effect status, different occupying territories unlike applicable. entirely appropriate clause is Groner, has been well stated matter Mr. Justice Pitts v. Cohrt Appeals, District speaking
547 485, (2d) F. Peak, 195, 197, 487, App.D.C. case (Claiborne- very recently which we had cite occasion States, 391): supra, at Annapolis Ferry p. by But it no means follows that because Congress by its fit, authority seen virtue over the District has to confer the courts Columbia, of the District ad- upon functions, which outside the it niay ministrative District created under solely courts article these confer any courts are the less created- under that article of the' Constitution, nór know of anything do we in the history legislation these courts' in with relation to them contrary. which would indicate We think a reason- that, subject able and correct view the would indicate in organization the creation and superior courts of Columbia, Congress -District has availed of its dual in the. right constitutional first to establish place courts them, has, law and invest as it juris- with power diction all which, over cases and controversies un- [with] der authority article it invested has the district courts the United in States, and, in second place, exercise power of sovereign state, under .the provisions of section 8 of article 1, has imposed further jurisdiction upon them and power which it cannot impose upon other like functioning outside the District. ’ There no inhibition in the Constitution against exercise Congress of this duál power, it arising as does express out of an grant (article the one case 3) an implied grant (article the other 1, 8), nor does its ex- ercise the one exhaust its power case prevent its other, exercise and therefore we assume, when Con- gress created the two courts —the District Courts of the United States and the Supreme Court of the District each, gave Columbia —and within own sphere, its identical jurisdiction, that it drew its power from same source, though it was even necessary should have re- course to .provision another of the Constitution in order ,of government with other courts at the seat
to clothe
*27
under
permissible
not
article 3.”
authority
and additional
States,
615,
38
also James United
v.
Ct. Cls.
And see
of on another
appeal disposed
court-on
627-631,
to
consti-
unnecessary
decide the
saying it was
ground,
The District hold office judges during good (c. 27 Stat' 434), same has salaries Congress invariably behavior. fixed for Court of the as District Supreme for the judges sit- courts of the United States judges district Dis- and the salaries elsewhere, judges ting of fee judges the same as Appeals trict Court of has appeals. courts of When one United States circuit been increased in like increased, been the other has Indeed, congressional practice amount. from the be- between ginning recognizes complete parallelism and the district and courts of the District circuit courts of the United States. See Trade appeals Federal supra, generally, especially Comm'n v. Klesner, *28 quoted. language already protest Taney
The Chief Justice apparently did not bear .fruit until Attorney time General .at Hoar delivered ah in opinion response to a request of the Secretary Treasury, the if holding that the of 1862 act imposed a tax the salaries of upon the President and the justices of the Supreme and inferior courts of the United States, it unconstitutional. was 161. Op. Atty. Gen. Upon authority the taxes which had been were paid in refunded, and 1872 a like refund of taxes was made to the judges of the Supreme Court District of Colum- bia, by as shown the records and files of Treasury the Department. true,
It is of course, in Congress, that conferring life tenure upon judges courts of the District, and in doing things the other mentioned above, might have so merely done as a matter of legislative discretion, deeming without it to be a matter constitutional com- pulsion. Nevertheless, a practice so uniform and contin- uous with some indicates, degree persuasive force, that Congress entertained view that the courts of the Dis- trict and the inferior courts of the United States sitting In footing. constitutional
elsewhere, upon stood same in event, not that the acts of any significance is without .Congress beginning government from brought has to our attention day, nothing been present that view. inconsistent with is entirely almost relies government decision Bakelite 438. in Ex U.S. parte Corp., this court the Court Customs Appeals In that case we held court, a constitutional court finder legislative was a nót opinion course of the Ill of the Constitution. In-the Art. in respect was called the decisions attention a courts, it was said that like view had territorial respect jurisdiction in been taken the-status by for the of Columbia. provided .District incidentally, way made of illustra- observation, This -merely elaboration, and without discussion was .tion necessary decision, harmony to the and is not with not in the “It present opinion. views is expressed disregarded,” said Chief Marshall to be Justice maxim, 264, 399, general 6 Wheat. Virginia, in Cohens to be are taken connec- every opinion, expressions, those expressions the case in which used. tion with may case, they respected, go beyond If they control, judgment suit subsequent not to ought The rea- presented decision. very point when question actually maxim is obvious. The be- of this son investigated with care, and considered Court is fore *29 principles may Other which serve in its full extent. in their relation to case de- considered the it, are illustrate bearing on all other possible their cases sel- but cided, investigated.” completely dom in in support are cited dictum th’e Two cases Co., Potomac supra, Elec. opinion Bakelite —Keller Fig Co., 272 Nut U.S. Cereal Co. v. Postum Calif. we have discussed. It already The Keller case 700. of in virtue its dual power holds that over the simply in District, may non-judicial, vest the Congress functions in nothing of the District. We find that decision courts be with what wé cannot reconciled have here said. Co., In of court the case Postum Cereal follows legislative in holding Keller case administrative may be vested in the courts of the District, functions may adds that not be done with any federal court Ill Art. of under the'Constitution. established Taken literally, negative this seems to the view that superior courts the District are established under Art. III. But in observation, read light what said was in case, Keller in dual respect power of Congress in with dealing District, the courts be should confine^ in the states to federal courts as which no such dual thus it is exists;.and confined, power not conflict with Congress view that from derives the District clause powers respect distinct constitutional courts District which possess does respect outside the District. of such courts ' Supreme We hold that Court and the Court of the District Appeals Columbia constitutional the United. States, ordained and courts un- established Ill of Constitution; judges der Art. that the of tíiesé good hold their offices during behavior, courts and that cannot, under the compensation their during their continuance diminished office. questions
In that view the accordance propounded with are answered.-
Question Í, No. Yes. Question 8, No. No. The Chief Mr. Justice, Devanter, Justice Van Cardozo, dissenting. Mr. Justice opinion We are of the District court has repeatedly as this Columbia, declared, are *30 552' 1 of § under Article III of
not courts established the Con- stitution, are established under the broad authority but for Congress government the of upon conferred 17 of 8 of by paragraph § District of Columbia Article I. limitations, 1 of Article with Hence, imposed III, § tenure and not respect compensation, applicable to special judges authority to courts. conferred /these government for the. of the District neces- Columbia sarily power to establish courts deemed to includes (Kendall States, United be for the District v. appropriate 12 fix including power'to Pet. and alter 524, 619), It in it- compensation. power and is a complete tenure 1 of nothing from Article III. It is' self and derives § as complete, essentially not less same ..power for govern- is Qongress that which conferred ment, Canter, American Insurance Co. v. territories. 141 174. States, 511, 546; Pet. McAllister U.S. derived, in the sense that is is not a dual power It from III and sources, that both Article also is, two from for provision government from the constitutional only dual the sense that the latter District, but is broad authority an so it enables confers provision only the courts of District not invest to to analogous federal powers and jurisdiction with those jurisdiction but also with the States within courts may those which States vest their analogous powers the District do not rest As the courts own courts. 1 Article their III, creation § their creation .on of that provision. of the limitations subject any if be limitations, appli considered to those Nor would that some might of division so be susceptible be cable, ignored. If might others obligatory deemed established under to courts relating limitations the courts District Colum III applied Article prevent attaching necessarily to the they would bia, powers of an jurisdiction adminis- latter *31 txative only sort. It is because the Congress, estab lishing the courts District Columbia, is free from the limitations imposed by 1 of Article III that administrative powers can be, are, conferred upon Keller them. v. Potomac Electric Co., 261 428, U.S. 442, 443; Postum Co. Cereal Fig Co., Nut California 700; U.S. Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U.S. 450. With question of policy, court is not con cerned, save as policy is determined the Constitution. question'is one constituí4 onal interpretation which has hitherto been deemed to settled.
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES. Argued April 12, May No. 728. 1933. —Decided 29, 1933.