It has long since been decided by the Supreme Court that neither that
tribunal nor the circuit courts of the United States, held within the
respective States, possess the power in question; but it is now held
that this power, denied to both of these high tribunals (to the former
by the Constitution and to the latter by Congress), has been by its
legislation vested in the circuit court of this District. No such direct
grant of power to the circuit court of this District is claimed, but it
has been held to result by necessary implication from several sections
of the law establishing the court. One of these sections declares that
the laws of Maryland, as they existed at the time of the cession,
should be in force in that part of the District ceded by that State,
and by this provision the common law in civil and criminal cases, as
it prevailed in Maryland in 1801, was established in that part of the
District.
In England the court of king's bench--because the Sovereign, who,
according to the theory of the constitution, is the fountain of justice,
originally sat there in person, and is still deemed to be present in
construction of law--alone possesses the high power of issuing the writ
of mandamus, not only to inferior jurisdictions and corporations, but
also to magistrates and others, commanding them in the King's name to do
what their duty requires in cases where there is a vested right and no
other specific remedy.
Pages:
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566