Near the close of its last session, the Sixty-first Congress passed an act entitled  An Act to codify, revise and amend the laws relating to the judiciary.  Approved March 3, 1911, which, by its own terms, Sec. 296, is to be designated and cited as  THE JUDICIAL CODE.  This act is to become operative on and after Jan. 1, 1912

Bunker, Robert E.

English

University of Michigan School of Law

University of Michigan Law SchoolUniversity of Michigan Law School Scholarship RepositoryArticles Faculty Scholarship1911The Judicial Code of March 3, 1911Robert E. BunkerUniversity of Michigan Law SchoolAvailable at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/920Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/articlesPart of the Courts Commons, and the Legislation CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It hasbeen accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For moreinformation, please contact mlaw.repository@umich.edu.Recommended CitationBunker, Robert E. "The Judicial Code of March 3, 1911." Mich. L. Rev. 9 (1911): 697-701.THE JUDICIAL CODE OF MARCH 3, 1911.NEAR the close of its last session, the Sixty-first Congress passedan act entitled "An Act to codify, revise and amend the lawsrelating to the judiciary." Approved March 3, 1911, which,by its own terms, Sec. 296, is to be designated and tited as "TH, Ju-DICIAL CoDE." This art is to becorhe operative on and after Jan. i,1912. The act is brief, considering the extent of the subject matterof which it treats, and the number and importance of the courtswith which it deals. It is embraced within a compass measuredby ninety-three pages of the regulation. size of congressional publicdocuments. It is a substitute 'for preceding enactments creatingthe courts of the United States and distributing jurisdiction amongthem, and furnishes in compact form a complete code defining thejurisdiction and'procedure of the nisi prius and appellate courts.The significant provision of the act is the abolition 'of the CircuitCourt and of the office of the Circuit Court Clerk, and the assign-ment of the jurisdiction conferred by previous acts upon the" Cir-cuit Court, to the District Court. The fact that two clerks' officesand two sets of records were maintained in each district withoutpublic necessity for their existence, and the fact that since the Cir-cuit Courts of Appeals were established the District Judges havealmost exclusively done the work assigned to the Circuit Courts,and prior to that time had done the most of such work, prompted,probably, more than any other circumstance, the enactment of thisstatute. The act preserves all the essential features of the generalplan of the creation, organization and jurisdiction of the FederalCourts ordained by the Judiciary Act of 1789, a plan which hasendured from the day of its adoption to the present time in spite ofthe changes, expansion and development during the century and aquarter of the Commonwealth's life. The general plan has not beendeparted from during our entire judicial history, and is not departedfrom in this latest act relating to the judiciary.The Judiciary Act of 1789, from every point of 'view, is one ofthe great acts of Congress, and stands, and always has stood, amonument to the great foresight and distinguished legal ability ofthat band of eminent lawyers of our early governmental history,who, under the leadership of Oliver Ellsworth, framed, withoutprecedent, without analogies and without other guide than theirown great'ability, the splendiS system of jurisprudence, jurisdictionand procedure of the national courts,- which, with slight changesfrom time to time, has met the demands of ninety millions of peopleMICHIGAN LAW REVIEWas well as of three millions; which has been found adequate, to therequirements of a territory of the proportions of an empire as wellas of a territory of limited area, and which.has proved itself suitedto the complex business and social life of the opening years of thetwentieth century, as well as to the closing years of the eighteenthcentury.With the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the amendments theretoadopted from time to time to meet the changed conditions of advanc-ing years, and increasing population and business, as their guide,the Sixty-first Congress had little to do ,save to eliminate the obso-.lete and to reject what was unnecessary to present requirements,without it for their guide, the Sixty-first Congress would have beenconfronted with a task from which the wisest among them wouldhave shrunk. It is no disparagement of the originality or .wisdomof the Sixty-first Congress that it followed in the footsteps of theFirst Congress. The experience of a century was appealing for apreservation of the system and was suggesting a revision of previousactus limited to the requirement and accommodation of present con-ditions. That Congress heeded the appeal and.suggestion is manifestfrom the act itself. It creates little, if anything. It revises andamends with moderation. Its main feature is codification. It con-tains fourteen chapters.Chapter I deals with District Courts and their organization. Theprdvfsions'of this chapter are little more than re-enactments ofstatutes with which the practitioner has. been familiar.Chapter II deals with District Courts and their jurisdiction. Theclause conferring jurisdiction is adapted from previous enactmentsconferring jurisdiction upon the Circuit Courts. In one respect thelanguage conferring the jurisdiction upon the District Court for-merly conferred upon the Circuit Court is an improvement onprevious enactments; particularly in respect to arrangeinent andperspicuity. No question could arise under the provisions of thisclause such as arose formeriy as to the jurisdictional amount. Theparticular jurisdiction here referred to is embraced in the firstparagraph of Section 24 of the act: "The District Courts shall haveoriginal jurisdiction as follows:"First. Of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity,brought by the United States, or by any officer thereof authorizedby law to sue, or between citizens of the same state claiming landsunder grants from different states." It will be observed that thisprovision is clear on the proposition that no jurisdictional amount isrequired. The suits to which the jurisdictional amount under for-Mer enactments was applicable became the subject of controversyJUDICIAL CODE OF MARCH 3, 1911and was settled by the Supreme Court in" United States v. Sayward,i6o U. S. 493. Continuing, the First Section makes it clear to whatmatters-in controversy the jurisdictional amount applies. The lan-guage is: "Or, where the matter in controversy exceeds, exclusiveof interest and costs, the sum or value of three thousand dollars,and arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States,or treaties made, or vhich shall be made, undei" their authority,or between citizens of different states, or is between citizensof a state and foreign states, citizens, or subjects." It is importantto note that the jurisdictional amount has been raised by the JudicialCode to three thousand dollars, as compared with two thousanddollars under the last preceding act.The second subdivision of Section 24 gives to the District Courtjurisdiction of all crimes and offenses cognizable under the authorityof the United States. "The general jurisdiction conferred by the act upon District Courtsis embraced in twenty-five clauses or subdivisions of Section 24.Sections 25, 26, and 27 confer appellate jurisdiction in a special caseand original jurisdiction in some special instances."Sec. 25. The District Court shall have appellate jurisdictionof the judgments and orders of United States Commissioners incases' arising under the Chinese exclusion laws."Sec. 26. The District Court for the district of Wyoming shalthave jurisdiction of all felonies committed within the YellowstoneNational Park and appellate jurisdiction of judgments in casesof conviction before th commissioner. authorized to be appointedunder section five of an Act entitled 'An Act to protect the birdsand animals in Yellowstone National Park, and to punish crimesin said Park, and ,for other purposes,' approved May seventheighteen hundred and ninety-foar."Sec. 27. The District Court of the United States for the dis-trict of South Dakota shall have jurisdiction to hear, try, and de-termine all actions and proceedings in which any person shall becharged with the crime of murder, manslaughter, rape, assault withintent to kill, arson, burglary, larceny, or assault with a dangerousweapon, committed within the limits of any Indian reservation inthe State of South Dakota."Chapter III deals with District Courts and removal of causes.It is a re-enactment of previous provisions concerning removal ofcauses to the Circuit Courts. The only substantial change is thenecessary substitution of District Courts for Circuit Courts.Chapter IV contains miscellaneous provisions relative to the Dis-trict Courts.700 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEWChapter V creates and defines the judicial districts into which theUnited States is divided. These districts severally include the ter-ritory embraced, on the first day of July, I9IO, within designatedcounties.Chapter VI re-enacts in substance, prior statutes concerning theCircuit Courts of Appeals.Chapter VII deals with the Court of Claims. The first section ofthe *chapter, Section I36 of the act, pfovides: "The Cour ofClaims, established by the Act of February twenty-fourth, eighteenhundred and fifty-five, shall be continued." It makes further, pfo-.visions for the organization, composition and jurisdiction of thecourt, which provisions are re-enactments of previous statutes re-.vised, however, to conform to the transfer of the jurisdiction,* for-merly vested in the Circuit Court, to the District- Court.Chapter VIII deals with .the Court of Customs Appeals.Chapter IX deals with the Commerce Court, and embrates theenactment establishing that Court.Chapter X deals with the Supreme Court, and re-enacts the statu,tory provisions relating to'that Court. .Chapter XI of the act deals with prov'isi6ns common to mote thanone court and with certain miscellaneous matter's respecting theoath of the United States Judges, their prohibition from practicing,the expenses of Circuit Justices and Circuit and District Judges, thesalar of judges after resignation, and matters of practice and pro-cedure.Chapter XII deals with juries, petit-and grand; the qualificationsand exemptions of jurors; the manner of drawing them; their ap-portionment in the district; limitations on their exclusion, and themanner of their summoning.Chapter XIII of the act, abolishes the Circuit Courts; makes pro-vision for the transfer of their records to the District Courts, andthe disposal of suits pending'therein, and their transfer to the Dis-trict Courts,, and makes this provision: "Sec. 291. Whenever, 'inany law not embraced within this act, any referencd is made to, orany power or duty is conferred or imposed upon, the Circuit Courts,'such reference shall, upon the taking effect of this act, be deemedand held to refer to, and to confer such power and impose such dutyupon, the District Courts."Chapter XIV deals ,with repealing provisions, andrepeals specifi7cally certain designated sections of the Revised Stat ufes, and certainother designated statutes, and concludes: "Als6 all other acts andparts of acts, in so far as they ai'e embraced within and supersededby this act, are hereby repealed; the remaining portions thereof toJUDICIAL CODE OF MARCH 3, 1911 701be and remain in force with the same effect and to the same extentas if this act had not been passed.""The Judicial Code" will commend itself to practitioners by reas-on of the compact form in which the law relating to the Federaljudiciary is expressed. The changes made in the law which has be-come familiar to practitioners will not, it is conjectured, be embar-rassing to them. On and after the date when the'Judicial Code be-comes operative the general practitioner in the Federal Court willfind himself in the District Court instead of in the Circuit Court.The change will be nominal, not substantial. The act has alreadybeen annotated by James Love Hopkins of the bar of the SupremeCourt of the United States and author of "Hopkins on UnfairTrade" and "Hopkins on Trade Marks" and has just been issued bythe publishers, Callaghan & Company, of Chicago. A copy of theact is set out in the publication together with notes based uponabout two hundred fifty cases.ROwERT E. BUNKER.UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAn.

The Judicial Code of March 3, 1911

https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1919&amp;context=articles

The Judicial Code of March 3, 1911

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Michigan School of Law