§ 691b. Review by the Supreme Court of decisions of the Courts of the Island Territories. The Supreme Court of the United States reviews the decisions of the United States District Court of Hawaii,1 and the United States District Court for Porto Rico 2 in the same classes of cases in which it can review Ibid. When a case involving constitutional questions as well as others is taken from the District Court of Alaska to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the Supreme Court can not review the decision of the latter court by appeal or writ of error; but only by certiorari. Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. Territory of Alaska, 249 U. S. 53. See supra, § 689. For decisions upon appeals and writs of error brought to review the judgments of courts of Territories which have subsequently become States, see Williams V. First Nat. Bank of Pauls Valley, 216 U. S. 582, 54 L. ed. 625; Eagle Mining Co. v. Hamilton, 218 U. S. 513, 54 L. ed. 1131; Young v. U. S., 176 Fed. 612. § 691b. 1 Act of March 3, 1891, ch. 517, § 5, 26 St. at L. 827. Act of Jan'y 20, 1897, ch. 68, 29 St. at L. 492. Act of April 12, 1900, ch. 191, § 35, 31 St. at L. 85. Act of April 30, 1900, ch. 339, § 86, 31 St. at L. 158. Act of March 3, 1909, ch. 269, § 1, 35 St. at L. 838. Act of March 3, 1911, ch. 231, §§ 238, 244, 36 St. at L. 1157. Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, ch. 22, § 2, 38 St. at L. 804. Comp. St. § 1215. 2 Ibid. See supra, § 688. For decisions under the former statutes, Cf. Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U. S. 149, 11, 49 L. ed. 385, 389; Amado v. U. S., 195 U. S. 172, 49 L. ed. 145; Garrozi v. Dastas, 204 U. S. 64, 51 L. ed. 369. Hijo v. U. S., 194 U. S. 315, 48 L. ed. 994; People of Porto Rico v. Emmanuel, 235 U. S. 251; Cerecedo v. U. S., 239 U. S. 1, 3. It was said that not every mere question of irregularity in the application of a law of the United States justifies a review by the Supreme Court, and held that the generality of the statement thereof and the absence of specifications would justify a dismissal of the writ. Arran v. Zurrinach, 222 U. S. 395, 56 L. ed. 246. A claim that the District Court of the United States of Porto Rico should follow the local statute in the selection of grand jurors, Crowley v. U. S., 194 U. S. 461, 48 L. ed. 1075; and that grand jurors were not selected or drawn as required by the Federal statutes, Rodriguez v. U. S., 198 U. S. 156, 49 L. ed. 994; are, when made by a man who has been indicted, claims of rights under statutes of the United States. So is the contention that a local law of Porto Rico is void because it is in conflict with a specified act of Congress; Kent v. Porto Rico, 207 U. S. 113, 52 L. ed. 127 (where the writ of error was dismissed because the claim was frivolous); but not a general claim that an indictment does not charge "an offense under the statutes of the United States." Amado v. U. S., 195 U. S. 172, 49 L. ed. 145. The contention that a jury trial cannot be had at a special term held at Mayaguez is too the decisions of the District Courts of the United States. "Writs of error and appeals from the final judgments and decrees of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii and of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico may be taken and prosecuted to the Supreme Court of the United States within the same time, in the same manner, under the same regulations, and in the same classes of cases, in which writs of error and appeals from the final judgments and decrees of the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, may be taken and prosecuted to the Supreme Court of the United States under the provisions of section two hundred and thirty-seven; * and in all other cases, civil or criminal, in the Supreme Court of the Territory of Hawaii 5 or the Supreme Court of Porto Rico, it shall be competent for the Supreme Court of the United States to require by certio. ari, upon the petition of any party thereto, that the case be certified to it, after final judgment or decree, for review and determination, with the same clearly frivolous to sustain a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States. American R. Co. v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453, 51 L. ed. 564. Upon a writ of error, the court can review such legal questions as arose upon the face of the record and appeared by a bill of exceptions, including the sufficiency of findings to sustain the decree, and, when there is a bill of exceptions, rulings on the objection and admission of testimony to which exceptions were duly taken. Garzot v. de Rubio, 209 U. S. 283, 52 L. ed. 794. 3 Jud. Code, § 128, as amended Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, ch. 22, § 2, 38 St. at L. 803, Comp. St. § 1120, Jud. Code, § 238, as amended Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, ch. 22, § 2, 38 St. at L. 804, Comp. St. § 1215; supra, § 688. 4 Infra, § 692. 4 5 Under the statute now in force the pecuniary amount is immaterial. Inter-Island Steam Navigation Co. v. Ward, 242 U. S. 1. Cf. Hapal v. Brown, 239 U. S. 502. Only final decisions can be reviewed. Cotton v. Hawaii, 211 U. S. 162, 53 L. ed. 131. The refusal of an order granting a new trial case can not be reviewed. Ibid. 6 See Serralles' Succession V. Esbri, 200 U. S. 103, 0 L. ed. 391; Monagas v. Albertucci, 225 U. S. power and authority as if taken to that court by appeal or writ of error."7 "No judgment or decree rendered or passed by the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands more than sixty days after the approval of this Act shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court upon writ of error or appeal; but it shall be competent for the Supreme Court, by certiorari or otherwise, to require that there be certified to it for review and determination, with the same power, and authority and with like effect as if brought up by writ of error or appeal, any cause wherein after such sixty days, the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands may render or pass a judgment or decree which would be subject to review under existing laws." 8 It seems that decisions of the courts of the Virgin Islands are not reviewable by the Supreme Court of the United States except by writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Third Circuit when the latter court has reviewed such decisions, or upon certification by the latter court to the Supreme Court of questions on propositions upon which instruction is desired. § 691c. Review by the Supreme Court of decisions of the District Court of the Canal Zone. The Supreme Court of the United States seems to have no jurisdiction to review the decisions of the District Court of the Canal Zone, except when reviewing the decisions of the Circuit Court of Appeals of the Fifth Circuit in cases originally instituted in such District Court, when the decisions of such Circuit Court of Appeals are not final.1 § 692. Writs of error from the Supreme Court to State Courts. By the Act of September 6, 1916, "A final judgment or decree in any suit in the highest court of a State in which a decision in the suit could be had, where is drawn in question 7 Jud. Code, § 246, as amended, 35 St. at L. 838, 36 St. at L. 1158, Act of Jan'y 28, 1915, 38 St. at L. 804, Comp. St. § 1223. 8 Act of Sept. 6, 1916, ch. 448, § 5, 39 St. at L. 727, Comp. St. § 1225b. See supra, § 689c. 9 Ch. 171, § 2. 39 St. at L. 1132, Comp. St. § 39242b. See supra, §§ 689d, 689f. § 691c. 1 Act of August 24, 1912, ch. 390, 9, 37 St. at L. 565, Comp. St. § 10045. See supra, § 70a, infra, § 693. 3 the validity of a treaty, or statute of,2 or an authority exer § 692. 1 The validity of a treaty is not drawn in question by a decision denying a right claimed thereunder by a consul or other person because it is not within the terms thereof. Erie R. R. Co. v. Hamilton, 248 U. S. 369, 39 Sup. Ct. 95, 63 L. ed. 307; Rust Land & Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 250 U. S. 71, 39 Sup. Ct. 424, 63 L. ed. 850. 2 The phrase, “validity of a statute," refers to the power of Congress to pass the statute and not to mere judicial construction, Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 210, 226, 32 L. ed. 908, 914, per Fuller, C. J.; District of Columbia v. Gannon, 130 U. S. 227, 32 L. ed. 922; Telluride Power Transmission Co. v. Rio Grande W. Ry. Co., 175 U. S. 639, 44 L. ed. 305; Coon v. Kennedy, 248 U. S. 457, 39 Sup. Co. 146, 63 L. ed. 358; Dana v. Dana, 250 U. S. 220, 39 Sup. Ct. 449, 63 L. ed. 947; Jett Bros. Co. v. City of Carrollton, 252 U. S. 1, 6; supra, § 691. The validity of an authority exercised under the United States drawn in question when a court refuses to enforce a regulation established by an Executive Department. U. S. ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen, 192 U. S. 543, 48 L. ed. 555 (a rule of practice established by the Commissioner of Patents); U. S. v. Antikamnia Co., 231 U. S. 654. Or when the right to hold an office is disputed. Clough v. Curtis, 134 U. S. 361, 370, 33 L. ed. 945; U. S. ex rel. Arant v. Lane, 245 U. S. 166. The validity of a statute is not drawn in question every time that a right claimed under such statute is controverted. Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653, 654, 34 L. ed. 1110, 1116, 1117; supra, § 497b; Rogers v. Clark Iron Co., 217 U. S. 589, 54 L. ed. 895; Reinman v. City of Little Rock, 237 U. S. 171. See Union Pac. R. Co. v. Laughlin, 247 U. S. 204, 38 Sup. Ct. 436, 62 L. ed. 1073. The validity of an authority exercised under the United States is not drawn in question by defending a suit brought by the government for the abatement of a fence upon public land. Cameron v. U. S., 146 U. S. 533, 36 L. ed. 1077; U. S. ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U. S. 461, 51 L. ed. 269. Nor by an application for a mandamus to compel an officer to allow a credit which he rejected when auditing an account where a government employe. U. S. v. Lyneh, 137 U. S. 280, 34 L. ed. 700. Nor by the denial of a claim or defense based upon a construction of the statute which the State court refused to adopt. Coon v. Kennedy, 248 U. S. 457; Citizens Bank v. Opperman, 249 U. S. 448. Nor by an application for a mandamus to compel restoration to a place in the public service when the relator does not deny the authority of the President or of his other superior to dismiss him but contends that the dismissal is illegal because of a failure to comply with certain rules and regulations of the civil service. U. S. ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, 203 U. S. 461, 51 L. ed. 269. See also, Board of Public Utility Com'rs v. Manila El. R. R. Lt. Co., 249 U. S. 262; supra, § 691. 3 Petrie v. Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District, 248 U. S. 154. The validity of an authority is not drawn in question every time an act done by such authority is disputed. eised under the United States, and the decision is against their validity; or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under any State, on the ground Cook County v. Calumet & C. C. & D. Co., 138 U. S. 635, 653, 34 L. ed. 1110, 1116, per Fuller, C. J. Nor unless such validity is primarily denied, and the denial made the subject of direct inquiry. Ibid. The authority exercised in the case appealed, by the court from which the appeal is taken, is not the authority intended. Snow v. U. S., 118 U. S. 346, 347, 30 L. ed. 207, 208. Nor by a failure to comply with the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in an analogous case. Rust Land & Lumber Co. v. Jackson, 250 U. S. 71. Nor by the denial of an adjournment or a continuance until the decision of the Supreme Court in another case which will determine the respective rights of the parties to the suit. Ibid. 4 Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 272; New Orleans & N. E. R. Co. v. Scarlet, 249 U. S. 528, 39 Sup. Ct. 369, 63 L. ed. 752; Darling v. City of Newport News, 249 U. S. 540, 39 Sup. Ct. 371, 63 L. ed. 759. See supra, § 688. So when the court denied the contention of the plaintiff in error that a State statute affecting interstate transportation was void as a regulation of interstate commerce. Adams Express Co. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 214 U. S. 218, 53 L. ed. 972. The validity of the action of a State board or commission acting under the authority of a State statute may be thus reviewed. Lake Erie & Western R. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commission, 249 U. S. 422; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Eddy, 249 U. S. 427, 39 Sup. Ct. 325, 63 L. ed. 689; Standard Computing Scale Co. v. Farrell, 249 U. S. 571. The contention that a lease was made in interstate commerce and was therefore not subject to the State statutes does not challenge the validity thereof. Mergenthaler Linotype Co. v. Davis, 251 U. S. 256. A writ of error was dismissed when it sought to review the validity of service of process upon a foreign corporation in accordance with a State statute. Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co. v. Gilbert, 245 U. S. 162. See Dana v. Dana, 250 U. S. 220, 39 Sup. Ct. 449, 63 L. ed. 947. 5 The validity of an order of a State commission, charged to have been made in violation of the Federal Constitution, may be thus reviewed. The right to due process of law, or to the equal protection of the law may be infringed by the action of a State court, although no State statute is attacked as unconstitutional. Miedreich V. Lauenstein, 232 U. S. 236; McDonald v. Oregon Railroad and Navigation Co., 233 U. S. 665; Willoughby v. Chicago, 235 U. S. 45; Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia Drainage Dist., 239 U. S. 478; O'Neil v. Northern Colorado Irrigation Co., 242 U. S. 20; In the Matter of the Petition of Selling v. Radford, 243 U. S. 46; Saunders v. Shaw, 244 U. S. 317. People of N. Y. ex rel. N. Y. & Queens Gas Co. v. McCall, 245 U. S. 345, 38 Sup. Ct. 122, 62 L. ed. 337. The denial of a writ of habeas corpus to discharge from arrest for interstate |