Chapman v. United States

• Decision Date: 30 November 1896
• Docket Number: No. 513,513
• Citation: 41 L.Ed. 504,164 U.S. 436,17 S.Ct. 76
• Parties: CHAPMAN v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

164 U.S. 436

17 S.Ct. 76

41 L.Ed. 504

CHAPMAN

v UNITED STATES.

No. 513.

November 30, 1896.

Geo. F. Edmunds and J. M. Wilson, for plaintiff in error.

Sol. Gen. Conrad, for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 436-446 intentionally omitted]

Page 446

Mr. Chief Justice FULLER, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellate jurisdiction of this court rests on the acts of congress, and the question is whether we have jurisdiction to review on writ of error a judgment of the court of appeals of the District of Columbia in a criminal case under section 8 of the act of February 9, 1893, establishing that court (27 Stat. 434, c. 74). And the proper construction of that section is to be arrived at in the light of previous decisions in respect of similar statutory provisions conferring appellate jurisdiction.

Section 8 of the act of February 27, 1801, entitled 'An act concerning the District of Columbia' (2 Stat. 103, c. 15), and creating a circuit court for the District, provided 'that any final judgment, order or decree in said circuit court, wherein the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the value of one hundred dollars, may be re-examined and

Page 447

reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States, by writ of error or appeal, which shall be prosecuted in the same manner, under the same regulations, and the same proceedings shall be had therein, as is or shall be provided in the case of writs of error on judgments, or appeals upon orders or decrees, rendered in the circuit court of the United States.'

In U. S. v. More, 3 Cranch, 159, 173 (decided in 1805), it was held that this court had no jurisdiction, under that section, over the judgments of the circuit court of the District in criminal cases, and Chief Justice Marshall said: 'On examining the act, 'concerning the District of Columbia,' the court is of opinion that the appellate jurisdiction granted by that act is confined to civil cases. The words, 'matter in dispute,' seem appropriated to civil cases, where the subject in contest has a value beyond the sum mentioned in the act. But, in criminal cases, the question is the guilt or innocence of the accused. And, although he may be fined upwards of 100 dollars, yet that is, in the eye of the law, a punishment for the offense committed, and not the particular object of the suit.'

The section, as thus construed, was carried forward in the subsequent legislation on the subject, which is referred to at length and considered in cases bereafter cited, and need not be again reviewed.

The act of March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 443, c. 355), consists of two sections, reading:

'Section 1. That no appeal or writ of error shall hereafter be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, or in the supreme court of any of the territories of the United States, unless the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars.

'Sec. 2. That the preceding section shall not apply to any case wherein is involved the validity of any patent or copyright, or in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of or an authority exercised under the United States; but in all such cases an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute.'

Page 448

We have decided that this court has no jurisdiction to grant a writ of error to review the judgments of the supreme court of the District of Columbia in criminal cases, either under the judiciary act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 826, c. 517; In re Heath, 144 U. S. 92, 12 Sup. Ct. 615), or under the act of February 6, 1889 (25 Stat. 599, c. 15; Cross v. U. S., 145 U. S. 571, 12 Sup. Ct. 842), or on habeas corpus (Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 13 Sup. Ct. 22). And, although the validity of any patent or copyright, or of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, was not drawn in question in those cases, it was distinctly ruled, in reaching the conclusions announced, that neither of the sections of the act of March 3, 1885, applied to any criminal case; and Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 253, U. S. v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, 12 Sup. Ct. 609, and U. S. v. More, 3 Cranch, 159, were cited with approval. Cross v. U. S., 145 U. S. 574, 12 Sup. Ct. 842; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 87, 13 Sup. Ct. 22.

In Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, in which it was claimed that the validity of an authority exercised under the United States was drawn in question, it was held that the second section of the act did not extend to criminal cases, but that both sections applied to cases where there was a matter in dispute measurably by some sum or value in money. The view taken was that the second section contained an exception or limitation carved out of the first section, and that the words, that in the enumerated cases, 'an appeal or writ of error may be brought without regard to the sum or value in dispute,' clearly implied that in those cases, also, there must be a pecuniary matter in dispute, measurable by some sum or value, though not restricted in amount.

In U. S. v. Sanges, referring to Snow v. U. S., 118 U. S. 346, 6 Sup. Ct. 1059, we said: 'The question whether the provision of the act of March 3, 1885, c. 355, § 2, authorizing a writ of error from this court to the supreme court of any territory in any case 'in which is drawn in question the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States,' extended to criminal cases, was then left open, but at October term, 1888, it was decided in the negative. Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 9 Sup. Ct. 253.'

Page 449

And in Washington & G. R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 146 U. S. 227, 231, 13 Sup. Ct. 64, 66, it was said: 'Both sections of the act of March 3, 1885, regulating appeals from the supreme court of the District of Columbia, apply to cases where there is a matter in dispute measurable by some sum or value in money. Farnsworth v. Territory of Montana, 129 U. S. 104, 112, 9 Sup. Ct. 253, 255; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 13 Sup. Ct. 22. By that act no appeal or writ of error can be allowed from any judgment or decree in any suit at law or in equity in the supreme court of the District of Columbia, unless the matter in dispute exclusive of costs shall exceed the sum of five thousand dollars, except that, where the case involves the validity of any patent or copyright, or the validity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority exercised under, the United States, is drawn in question, jurisdiction may be maintained irrespective of the amount of the sum or value in dispute.'

Watts v. Territory of Washington, 91 U. S. 580, decided at October term, 1875, is cited as sustaining a different construction, but the point of decision there was that it nowhere appeared that the constitution or any statute or treaty of the United States...