If the laws of a State confer upon its courts powers of a legislative, executive, administrative, or prerogative character, such laws will be ineffective to confer such powers upon the Courts of the United States. § 28. The Courts of the United States cannot control the executive officers of the United States, or of the several States, in the discharge of their political duties.-The rights which fall within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary are personal and property rights, and not political rights.1 In re Interstate Commerce Com- | strumentalities whereby its existmission, 53 Fed. 476; ence might, and otherwise would, Ex parte Riebeling, 70 Fed. 310. be maintained." 5 Ante § 25. One of the most anomalous instances of State legislation conferring non-judicial powers upon a State court is the statutory provision involved in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 17 Sup. Ct. 665, 41 L. 1095; s. o., 34 U. S. App. 552, 18 C. C. A. 175, 71 Fed. 443; s. c., 68 Fed. 774; s. C., 142 Ind. 505, 516, 40 N. E. 267, 41 N. E. 950, 30 L. R. A. 576, by which the expediency of the annexation of territory to a city is submitted for trial in court to a jury! § 28. 1 In In discussing a motion by the defendants to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the Court said, among other things: "It is claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction either over the subject-matter set forth in the bill or over the parties defendants. And, in support of the first ground, it is urged that the matters involved and presented for adjudication are political and not judicial and, therefore, not the subject of judicial cognizance. "This distinction results from the organization of the Government into the three great departments, Executive, Legislative and Judi Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, | cial-and from the assignment and 18 L. 721, limitation of the powers of each by the Constitution. "The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as Congress may ordain and establish; the political power of the Government in the other two departments. the Supreme Court was-to quote from the opinion-“ called upon to restrain the defendants, who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress, inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the exist- "The distinction between judiing State government of Georgia, cial and political power is so genand establish another and different erally acknowledged in the jurisone in its place; in other words, prudence both of England and of would overthrow and destroy the this Country, that we need do corporate existence of the State, by no more than refer to some of the depriving it of the means and in- | authorities on the subject. They not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States." 1 § 27. The Courts of the United States have only judicial powers. As elsewhere stated,' the Constitution furnishes the limit of the powers conferrable upon the Courts of the United States. Subject to a trifling exception, none but judicial powers can be conferred, even by Congress, upon the Courts of the United States.1 $ 26. 1 Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 10 Sup. Ct. 504, 33 L. 842 (affirming s. c., 24 Fed. 55). For example, it is held in the case cited that an action cannot be brought by an individual against a State although such action involve a Federal question; the Supreme Court approving Hamilton, the Federalist, No. 81; Madison, 3 Elliot's Debates, 533; Marshall, 3 Elliot's Debates, 555; the dissenting opinion of Justice Iredell in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419, 1 L. 440; and overruling the decision of the majority of the Court in that case. A suit against a State officer in name, but against the State in fact, falls within the prohibition of a suit against a State. 3 Manchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Herriott, 91 Fed. 711; Ball v. Rutland R. Co., 93 Fed. 513. $ 27. 1 Ante § 23. 2 Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, ante § 2; Art. II, § 2, cl. 2, quoted in next note. 8 "The Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they may think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of law, or in the heads of departments." U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 2. 4" Congress (excluding the special cases provided for in the Constitution, as, for instance, in section two of Article two of that instrument) may not impose upon the Courts of the United States Governor of Georgia v. Madrazo, any duties not strictly judicial." 1 Pet. 110, 7 L. 73; Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cunningham v. Macon & B. R. North Carolina v. Temple, 134 Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 20 Sup. Ct. 919, 44 L. 1140, affirming Smith v. Rackliffe, 59 U. S. App. 427, 31 C. C. A. 328, 87 Fed. 964; This has frequently been ad Hayburn's Case, note, 2 Dall. 409, 1 L. 436; United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40, 14 L. 42; United States v. Todd, 13 How. 52, 14 L. 47; Ex parte Gans, 17 Fed. 471, 5 McCr. 393; In re Pacific Railway Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 12 Sawy. 559; If the laws of a State confer upon its courts powers of a legislative, executive, administrative, or prerogative character, such laws will be ineffective to confer such powers upon the Courts of the United States. § 28. The Courts of the United States cannot control the executive officers of the United States, or of the several States, in the discharge of their political duties.-The rights which fall within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary are personal and property rights, and not political rights.1 In re Interstate Commerce Com-strumentalities whereby its existmission, 53 Fed. 476; ence might, and otherwise would, Ex parte Riebeling, 70 Fed. 310. be maintained." 5 Ante § 25. One of the most anomalous instances of State legislation conferring non-judicial powers upon a State court is the statutory provision involved in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 17 Sup. Ct. 665, 41 L. 1095; s. c., 34 U. S. App. 552, 18 C. C. A. 175, 71 Fed. 443; s. c., 68 Fed. 774; s. c., 142 Ind. 505, 516, 40 N. E. 267, 41 N. E. 950, 30 L. R. A. 576, by which the expediency of the annexation of territory to a city is submitted for trial in court to a jury! § 28. 1 In | In discussing a motion by the defendants to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the Court said, among other things: "It is claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction either over the subject-matter set forth in the bill or over the parties defendants. And, in support of the first ground, it is urged that the matters involved and presented for adjudication are political and not judicial and, therefore, not the subject of judicial cognizance. "This distinction results from the organization of the Government into the three great departments, Executive, Legislative and Judi Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, cial-and from the assignment and limitation of the powers of each by the Constitution. 18 L. 721, the Supreme Court was-to quote from the opinion-" called upon to restrain the defendants, who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress, inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing State government of Georgia, and establish another and different one in its place; in other words, would overthrow and destroy the corporate existence of the State, by depriving it of the means and in "The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as Congress may ordain and establish; the political power of the Government in the other two departments. "The distinction between judicial and political power is so generally acknowledged in the jurisprudence both of England and of this Country, that we need do no more than refer to some of the authorities on the subject. They sva fed in the third district court, Parsa ač Úrienos. Louisiana, Jan. 2 1880, Hṛy the plaintiffs in error, its against the defendants in error, beiding various State offees and constituting the Board of Lolava, for a mazdamus, re quining them to appropriate certain finds on hand, amounting to some 800,001 to the payment of the interest due and payable upon the orase dated bonds of the State of Leusina and to eclect certain taxes and apply the proceeds on the interest ani principal of said bonds. -That these matters, bech ss stated in the body of the 311, and in the prayers for relet, call for the judgment of the Coan 17a political questions, and spea mea not of persons or property, bat of a political chariter, will hardly be denied. For the rights, for the protection of which our authority is invoked, are the rights of sovereignty, of political jurisd ctice of government, of corporate existence as a State, with all its ecnstitutional powers and privileges. No case of private rights or private property infringed, or in danger of actual or threatened infringement, is pre- **Upon the final hearing, the sented by the bill, in a judicial Court below found for the defend "The cause was subsequently removed into the Court below on a petition of the relators. If the laws of a State confer upon its courts powers of a legislative, executive, administrative, or prerogative character, such laws will be ineffective to confer such powers upon the Courts of the United States. 5 § 28. The Courts of the United States cannot control the executive officers of the United States, or of the several States, in the discharge of their political duties.—The rights which fall within the cognizance of the Federal Judiciary are personal and property rights, and not political rights.1 In re Interstate Commerce Com- | strumentalities whereby its existmission, 53 Fed. 476; ence might, and otherwise would, Ex parte Riebeling, 70 Fed. 310. be maintained." 5 Ante § 25. One of the most anomalous instances of State legislation conferring non-judicial powers upon a State court is the statutory provision involved in Forsyth v. Hammond, 166 U. S. 506, 17 Sup. Ct. 665, 41 L. 1095; s. o., 34 U. S. App. 552, 18 C. C. A. 175, 71 Fed. 443; s. c., 68 Fed. 774; s. c., 142 Ind. 505, 516, 40 N. E. 267, 41 N. E. 950, 30 L. R. A. 576, by which the expediency of the annexation of territory to a city is submitted for trial in court to a jury! § 28. 1 In In discussing a motion by the defendants to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction, the Court said, among other things: "It is claimed that the Court has no jurisdiction either over the subject-matter set forth in the bill or over the parties defendants. And, in support of the first ground, it is urged that the matters involved and presented for adjudication are political and not judicial and, therefore, not the subject of judicial cognizance. "This distinction results from the organization of the Government into the three great departments, Executive, Legislative and Judi Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wall. 50, | cial—and from the assignment and 18 L. 721, limitation of the powers of each by the Constitution. "The judicial power is vested in one Supreme Court, and in such Inferior Courts as Congress may ordain and establish; the political power of the Government in the other two departments. the Supreme Court was-to quote from the opinion-" called upon to restrain the defendants, who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain acts of Congress, inasmuch as such execution would annul and totally abolish the exist- "The distinction between judiing State government of Georgia, cial and political power is so genand establish another and different erally acknowledged in the jurisone in its place; in other words, prudence both of England and of would overthrow and destroy the this Country, that we need do corporate existence of the State, by no more than refer to some of the depriving it of the means and in-authorities on the subject. They |