Circuit courts of appeals have no jurisdiction over the
judgments of territorial courts in capital cases and in cases of
infamous crimes.
This construction of the statute is imperative from its
language, and is not affected by the fact that convictions for
minor offenses are reviewable on a second appeal, while convictions
for capital and infamous crimes are not so reviewable.
This was a certificate from the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which, omitting the formal parts,
reads as follows:
"First. At a regular term of the District Court of the Second
Judicial District of the Territory of New Mexico, sitting for the
trial of causes arising under the Constitution and laws of the
United States, held at Albuquerque, in said district, the plaintiff
in error, Stephen M. Folsom, was, on the 15th day of March, 1894,
indicted by the grand jury in said court for making certain false
entries in violation of the provisions of section 5209 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States."
"Second. He was thereafter arraigned. He pleaded not guilty. He
was tried by the said district court and a jury, was found guilty
of making certain of the false entries charged in said indictments
in violation of the provisions of section 5209, and was thereafter,
on the 14th day of April, 1894, ordered and adjudged by the said
court to be confined at hard labor in the territorial penitentiary
at Santa Fe, New Mexico, for the term and period of five years upon
each of the seven separate and distinct offenses, as laid and
charged in the fourteen counts of the indictments upon which the
jury had theretofore returned a verdict of guilty, and it was
further ordered and adjudged by the said court that said term
Page 160 U. S. 122
upon each of the said offenses should run concurrently each with
the others, and that the defendant pay the costs to be taxed, and
that execution issue therefor."
"Third. The said Stephen M. Folsom then appealed from said
judgment to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, and
his case upon said appeal was heard and tried by the said supreme
court August 27, 28, and 29, 1894; was on the latter day submitted
to and taken under advisement by said court, which, on September 4,
1894, adjudged that the judgment of the District Court of the
Second Judicial District aforesaid be affirmed, and that said
Folsom be confined in the New Mexico penitentiary at Santa Fe, New
Mexico, for the full term of five years pursuant to the said
judgment of the district court."
"Fourth. On the 9th day of November, 1894, a writ of error was
duly issued out of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Judicial Circuit to the Supreme Court of the Territory
of New Mexico, commanding the said court to send the records and
proceedings and the judgment in said case between the United States
of America, plaintiff and appellee, and Stephen M. Folsom,
defendant and appellant, in said supreme court, with all things
concerning the same, to this Circuit Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit, together with said writ, so that the same should be
filed in the office of the clerk of this Court on or before the
first day of January, 1895, to the end that, the records and
proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the United States Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit might cause further to be
done therein to correct the error of which the said Folsom had
complained that of right and according to the law and custom of the
United States should be done, and pursuant to that writ, the clerk
of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico made due return
and transmitted to this court a true copy of the record, bill of
exceptions, assignment of errors, and of all proceedings in said
case before January 1, 1894, and the said case is now pending in
this court."
"Fifth. January 7, 1895, the United States of America filed a
motion to dismiss the writ of error on the ground
Page 160 U. S. 123
that this circuit court of appeals has no jurisdiction to hear
and determine the issue raised thereby or to review the said
judgment of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico, and
the said motion has been argued and submitted to this court for
decision."
"Sixth. The errors in the judgment and proceedings of the
Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico which are assigned by
Stephen M. Folsom, the plaintiff in error in his complaint, upon
which the said writ of error was issued from this court, are such
that if, upon due consideration upon the merits, they should be
sustained, the judgment of the said supreme court ought to be
reversed."
"And the said United States circuit court of appeals further
certifies that, to the end that it may properly decide this and
other questions arising in this case which are duly presented by
exceptions and assignments of error properly taken and filed, the
said court desires the instruction of the Supreme Court of the
United States upon the following question:"
"Has the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Judicial Circuit any jurisdiction to hear and determine the issue
presented by said writ of error and to review the judgment and
proceedings of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New
Mexico?"
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after stating the facts in the
foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the Court.
The offense denounced by section 5209 of the Revised Statutes is
punishable by imprisonment not less than five nor more than ten
years, and is therefore an infamous crime.
In re Claasen,
140 U. S. 200, and
cases cited.
The question, then, is whether the Circuit Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit has jurisdiction of a writ of error to
Page 160 U. S. 124
review the judgment and proceedings of the Supreme Court of the
Territory of New Mexico in the instance of a conviction of an
infamous crime.
By section five of the Judiciary Act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat.
827, c. 517, it was provided that appeals or writs of error might
be taken from the district courts or from the circuit courts direct
to the supreme court in six classes of cases, one of which classes
was "cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise infamous crime,"
and by section 6, that the circuit courts of appeals should
exercise appellate jurisdiction to review, by appeal or writ of
error, final judgments of the district courts and the circuit
courts
"in all cases other than those provided for in the preceding
section of this act, unless otherwise provided by law. And the
judgments or decrees of the circuit courts of appeals shall be
final in all cases in which the jurisdiction is dependent entirely
upon the opposite parties to the suit or controversy being aliens
and citizens of the United States or citizens of different states;
also in all cases arising under the patent laws, the revenue laws
or under the criminal laws, and in admiralty cases."
In harmony with previous legislation, 25 Stat. 784, c. 333; 26
Stat. 99, c. 182 § 42, section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1891,
26 Stat. 829, c. 517, provides:
"Appeals and writs of error may be taken and prosecuted from the
decisions of the United States court in the Indian Territory to the
Supreme Court of the United States, or to the circuit court of
appeals in the Eighth Circuit in the same manner and under the same
regulations as from the circuit or district courts of the United
States under this act."
Obviously this section was designed to give a review of the
decisions of the court of original jurisdiction by an appellate
tribunal, and the same reason would not obtain in respect of cases
where such review could already be had. Nevertheless, section 15
was added, although Congress did not see fit, in relation to
appeals or writs of error from and to the supreme courts of the
several territories, to make the same provision thereby as that in
section thirteen except so far as the circuit courts of appeals
were concerned, and as to them only in cases in which their
judgments were made final by the act.
Page 160 U. S. 125
Section fifteen is as follows:
"That the circuit court of appeals in cases in which the
judgments of the circuit courts of appeals are made final by this
act shall have the same appellate jurisdiction, by writ of error or
appeal, to review the judgments, orders, and decrees of the supreme
courts of the several territories as by this act they may have to
review the judgments, orders, and decrees of the district courts
and circuit courts, and for that purpose the several territories
shall, by orders of the supreme court, to be made from time to
time, be assigned to particular circuits."
By section 702 of the Revised Statutes and the Act of March 3,
1885, 23 Stat. 443, c. 355, the final judgments and decrees of the
supreme courts of the territories, where the matter in dispute,
exclusive of costs, exceeded the sum of five thousand dollars,
might be reviewed, reversed, or affirmed in this Court upon a writ
of error or appeal in the same manner and under the same
regulations as the final judgments or decrees of a circuit
court.
In
Shute v. Keyser, 149 U. S. 649,
which was a case not falling within either of the classes in which
the judgments of the circuit courts of appeals were made final by
the Act of March 3, 1891, we held that, as there was no provision
by the fifteenth section of that act for appeals or writs of error,
except to the circuit courts of appeals, in cases in which their
judgments were made final, and no express repeal of the provisions
of the prior acts regulating appeals or writs of error from the
supreme courts of the territories in other cases, an appeal or writ
of error lay to this Court from the judgments or decrees of those
courts in such other cases.
In
Aztec Mining Company v. Ripley, and 53 F. 7, the
Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that it had no
jurisdiction under the fifteenth section, because the case at bar
did not come within any one of the classes of cases wherein the
judgments of that court were declared to be final, and its judgment
dismissing the writ of error on that ground was affirmed by this
Court, while it was at the same time pointed out that, as the value
of the matter in dispute did not reach five thousand dollars, we
could not take jurisdiction of
Page 160 U. S. 126
the particular case.
Aztec Mining Company v. Ripley,
151 U. S. 79.
It was urged that Congress could not have intended that such
cases should be brought to this Court by reason of the
discrimination in the fifteenth section, but we were constrained to
the conclusion reached in view of all the legislation on the
subject and the specific language of the section, which we were not
at liberty to disregard.
The result was rendered inevitable, in our opinion, by the
restriction of the jurisdiction of the circuit courts of appeals to
cases in which their judgments were made final by the act, and the
same rule seems applicable in the disposal of the question under
consideration.
By the sixth section, the circuit courts of appeals are vested
with appellate jurisdiction
"to review by appeal or by writ of error final decisions in the
district courts, and the existing circuit courts in all cases other
than those provided for in the preceding section of this act,
unless otherwise provided by law,"
and their judgments are made final in, among others, cases
arising under the criminal laws.
By the preceding section, appeals or writs of error may be taken
from the district courts or the existing circuit courts directly to
this Court "in cases of conviction of a capital or otherwise
infamous crime."
The criminal cases in which the judgments of the circuit courts
of appeals are made final by section six do not embrace therefore
capital cases or cases of infamous crimes.
The fifteenth section confers appellate jurisdiction on the
circuit courts of appeals to review the judgments of the supreme
courts of the territories, but it is, in terms, the same appellate
jurisdiction as conferred by the sixth section in respect of the
judgments of district and circuit courts, and, this being so, is
limited to those cases in which, if decided by the district and
circuit courts, the judgments of the circuit courts of appeals
would be final.
Sections 5 and 6 relate to appellate jurisdiction over the
judgments and decrees of district and circuit courts. Section 13
gives the same appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of
Page 160 U. S. 127
the United States Court in the Indian Territory, distributed in
accordance with sections 5 and 6. Section 15 gives the same
appellate jurisdiction over the territorial courts, but confines it
to the courts of appeals and to particular cases as specified in
section 6. The grant of jurisdiction is not general, but specific
and limited, and we see no escape from the conclusion that it is
not conferred on the circuit courts of appeals over territorial
judgments in capital cases and cases of infamous crimes.
It is said that this involves the absurdity that convictions for
minor offenses are reviewable on a second appeal, while convictions
for capital and infamous crimes are not. Doubtless, in some cases,
where the language of a statute leads to an absurdity, hardship, or
injustice presumably not intended, a construction may be put upon
it modifying the meaning of the words so as to carry out the real
intention, but where the intention is plain, it is the duty of the
court to expound the statute as it stands. As far as Congress went
in conferring this right to a second appeal, the intention is clear
and the language used unambiguous. The objection really is that
Congress should have gone further and given by this act a second
review in this Court in cases of convictions of capital and
infamous crimes in the territories.
It may be that there was an oversight in that particular, but if
there were, we certainly cannot supply it by construing the
fifteenth section as carrying appellate jurisdiction over such
cases to the circuit courts of appeals, and so enlarging that
jurisdiction into something other and different from "the same
appellate jurisdiction" as is exercised in reviewing the judgments
of district and circuit courts under section 6 of the act.
We answer the question in the negative, and it will be
So certified.
