Appendix — Glidden Co. v. Zdanok

APPENDIX

Excerpt From 68 Cong. Rec. 3181-2 (Feb. 7, 1927),

69th Cong., 2d Sess.:

Mr. Granam. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to

‘nsert in the Recorp a comment upon the question of the

cnstitutionality of this transfer. That question has been

raised under a decision of the Supreme Court January 3,

1927, and these remarks would clearly, I think, establish

the constitutionality of the act.

The Speaker. The gentleman from Pennsylvania asks

manimous consent to extend his remarks in the Recorp

by publishing a statement upon the constitutionality of the

act. Is there objection?

Mr. LaGvarpra. May we have the remarks placed in the

Recorp at this point?

The Speaker. The gentleman from New York asks

unanimous consent that the remarks be placed in the Recorp

at this point. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

The statement is as follows:

Congress exercises the function of creating courts under

several different grants of power. It is expressly given

the power of creating inferior courts to the Supreme Court

of the United States in the administration of Federal

justice under the grant of Article III of the Constitution.

These courts exercise jurisdiction within the borders of

each State in all cases described in the third article as

judicial power extended by that article to the United States.

Congress may create courts to exercise complete juris-

diction over the District of Columbia, as given it by reason

of the exclusive governmental jurisdiction that it has over

the District vested expressly by the Constitution. Congress

may in the same way create courts to exercise complete

and exclusive judicial jurisdiction over the Territories of

the United States under that provision of the Constitution

vhich gives Congress the right to impose needful regula-

tions over the territory and property of the United States.

This latter power is also said by Chief Justice Marshall

and others to grow out of the power of the United States

:

as a sovereign to govern the territory which it owns, not

in the States. In the same way it may be properly said

that were there no third article to the Constitution, the

United States as a sovereign Government could create

courts to decide cases arising between the Government

and such individuals in reference to its own taxes, its own

grants, and in reference to its own debts. In other words,

I conceive that without the special grant of power under

the third article of the Constitution Congress could exer.

cise the power of a sovereign, create a court of claims to

pass on the debts which the United States may owe to

individuals, on grants of lands which it may have granted

to individuals, to grants of patent rights which it may have

granted.to individuals, and the construction and decision

of cases arising under the customs or internal revenue

laws affecting the payment of the revenue which a sovereign

must collect in order that it may live. With reference to

these latter courts, it may be said that the same rigid rule

would not be applied to the functions which Congress may

give to.them as to whether they shall be purely judicial

or not, as has been applied in respect to courts that exer-

cise a Federal jurisdiction under the third article of the

judicial power of the United States, as distinguished from

the general administration of justice by the States within

State borders, which could not exist but for the third

article. In this way the Court of Claims, the Court of

Customs Appeals, and a court of patents may be easily

distinguished from the Supreme Court and its subordinate

courts under the third article in respect to limitation to

strictly-judicial functions. ,

The Supreme Court and the subordinate courts of the

United States, exercising jurisdiction within the several

States of the Union, all deal with cases and controversies

in the sense of the third article of the Constitution, but

as to courts which are not concerned with the exercise of

judicial power within or affecting the several States, there

is reason to believe that they stand on a different plane,

and that as they are brought into being and exist in virtue

of the sovereignty of the United States, and of its power

to do all that is essential to the effective exercise of a gov-

ernment, such as aiding in the enforcement of the taxation

80

81

laws, aiding in the administration and enforcement of the

public land laws and the Indian laws, and in the ascertain-

ment and determination of claims against the United States

and the administration of the laws relating to the granting

of patents, copyrights, and trade-marks, they may be in-

vested with jurisdiction and powers which lie ontside of

and beyond the controversies and cases which are com-

prehended by the third article of tne Constitution. Il-

lustrations of this will be found in the court of private-land

daims, which for many years ascertained and reported

the facts respecting conflicting claims to lands, jurisdiction

over which was ceded to the United States by Mexico, to

the special Indian court, which dealt ~vithelaims to citizen-

ship of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory

when Congress was preparing that region for admission

to the Union as a State, to the Court of Claims, and

especially its power and authority to examine and report

on claims, at the instance of either House of Congress or

at the instance of any of the executive departments of the

Government. In Gordon v. United States (117 U.S., Ap-

pendix 697, 699), Chief Justice Taney said:

“So far as the Court of Claims is concerned, we see no

objection to the provisions of this law. Congress may un-

doubtedly establish tribunals with special powers to ex-

amine testimony and decide, in the first instance, upon the

validity and justice of any claim for money against the

United States, subject to the supervision and control of

Congress or a head of any of the executive departments.”

And while in that and other cases it is held that where

the action of such a tribunal is intended to be advisory

mly, and in aid of legislative or administrative action,

there can be no review by the Supreme Court, the cases

all recognize that Congress, consistently with the Consti-

tution, may establish special tribunals and clothe them with

power to ascertain and decide facts and report them as a

basis for legislative or administrative action, without

putting them in the form of a controlling judicial judgment.

The case of the Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig-

Nuts Co., decided January 3, 1927, following the case of

Keller v. The Potomac Electric Power Co. (261 U.S. 428),

82

which in turn followed the case of Baldwin v. Howard

(256 U.S. 35), and Muskrat v. United States (219 US.

346), were cases in which the jurisdiction of the Supreme

Court of the United States was in question, and it was

held that its power and jurisdiction as a court was limited

to judicial cases and controversies and could not extend

to mere decisions as by a commission or special tribunal

created for the purpose of aiding governmental functions,

whether legislative or administrative. But these ¢

would not apply to a Court of Customs and Patent Appe

to whose jurisdiction Congress may properly add the duties

of an administrative tribunal for governmental purposes,

As

pe

12

"

x.

* ae ; 3 \ s RON nee Sad a J . ; .

ne 9 . . , hg Ja : eee ee » : : YY .* “> ore me

7 fg Se te J seta we ; i: a a ee how Fee

U e >: Ls J LW q ma . -“ ” ‘ A Se IE

? on te nee ~~) . menemed - me 3 ae)

~ - - : = eed 2 pe we se

4

oe AREOAIT ENTS ON I SR

es ‘ rd

ane | >; i

.@ A as .s

e

a

Ay ee ; oe, os

eat ty ott or’

/ Questions presented - ---------------------------------

- Constitutional provisions and statutes involved-_---------

> Statement.._.---.-----------------------------------

Summary of argument--------------------------------

ment....-.----------- woe - oo 2-2-2 ==

I. Judge Jackson was at least a de facto judge, whose

authority petitioner, as a defendant in @

criminal trial, lacked standing to challenge—

in any event for the first time on appeal. -----

II. Even assuming the “legislative” character of the

Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, Con-

gress had power under the District of Columbia

clause of the Constitution to authorize the

judges of that court (including retired judges)

to serve on the superior courts of the District - -

III. Judge Jackson is, and at least since 1958 has been,

an Article III judge, fully competent to sit on

the District Court for the District of Columbia

or any other Article III court to which he may

_ be assigned pursuant to statutory authority -- -

. IV. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was

validly created by Congregs as, and has always

been, an Article III court_------------------

_. A. Congress, by the Act of August 25, 1958,

declared the Court of Customs and

Patent Appeals to be a court which had

been established under Article ITI.----

(I)

624477—62——_1

27

39

51

af

Argument—Continued Pep

IV. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was

validly created by Congress as, and has always

been, an Article III court—Continued

B. The Court of Customs and Patent

Appeals was in fact created by Congress

as an Article IIT court__..___________ 60

1. The court’s history shows that

Congress established it pursuant

to Arteole TM. 2.25 - cc. 6)

(a) The creation and history

of the court__________ 61

(6) The congressional pur-

pose to establish the

court as an Article IIT

2. The decision in Ez parte Bakelite

Corporation, 279 U.S. 438,

should be reexamined and held

no longer effective____________ 85

C. There is no constitutional obstacle to the

conclusion that the Court of Customs

and Patent Appeals was validly estab-

lished by Congress under Article III__ 96

1. The customs jurisdiction of the

court has always been purely

judicial in character, involving

cases arising under the Consti-

tution, laws, and treaties of the

United States, and controversies

to which the United States is a

(6) “Arising under this Con-

stitution, the Laws of

the United States, and

NE 98

(c) “Controversies to which

the United States shall

O60 2 nc ceca 99

2. The subsequent vesting in the

court of jurisdiction over other —

matters did not affect its Article

Fann ee, See ra 102

Argument—Continued men

V. If the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals was ;

not an Article III court before 1958, the Act

of August 25, 1958, made it one_--.--------- 114

PentettO. ... 2... 2 cg pon nat cdeccesedsentseesesseesess 117

Appendix A: Constitutional provisions and statutes in-

ee. SD... accndanenedtwanusdaranetdekshode@hws 118

Appendix B: Creation and History of the United States

Customs Court (formerly the Board of General Apprais-

SS re eer rr ere 131

CITATIONS

Cases :

Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583_..------ 70

American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville Railway, 148

Be Sic acac candies ata ees ween camassntondan 38

American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511_-.------ 51

American Sugar Refining Co. v. United Staies, 181 U.S.

Gs wat eesandccanccennchipda sue iedestdb hans 70

Amtorg Corp., In re, 22 C.C.P.A. 558, 75 F. 2d 826... 103

Anglo-California Bank v. United States, 175 U.S. 37-- 70

Answer of the Justices, 122 Mass. 600_----.------.--- 33

Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U.S.

OF ccvccdcassmeebadin Mandasatnatabddionsense™ 41

Atlantic Transport Co. v. United States, 5 Ct. Cust.

BE, TIE cnncnnnbanndndnnsssdenweth= ntiucew sna 133

Attorney General v. Megin, 63 N.H. 378_.-.--------- 31

Auffmordt v. Hedden, 137 U.S. 310_-.-.------------ 93

Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. United States, 331 U.S. 132. 36, 38

Bakelite Corporation, Ex parte, 279 U.S. 438_..-.---- 17,

18, 19, 25, 41, 43, 46, 52, 53, 59, 61, 66, 67, 75, 77,

84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 92, 94, 95, 96, 99, 102, 103,

112, 114, 134.

Baker v. State, 80 Wis. 416... ....--------.-.----.. 31

Ball v. United States, 140 U.S. 118___..--.---- 7, 28, 29, 34

BaGen v7. Biats, GB Taste 190 4. wnvndcndoncs-cccduca 32

Barr v. United States, 324 U.S, 83_-.-.-....-------- 76

Bird v. State, 154 Miss. 493__....----------..----- 32

Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois v. United

ES ge Rea 76

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497..--.-.--------.---- 41

Boomhower, Inc. v. American Automobile Insurance

Co., 220 F. 2d 488, certiorari denied, 350 U.S. 833-- 45

Cases—Continued

Booth v. United States, 291 US. 339----------------

Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423-.----------------------

Buckler v. Bowen, 198 Md. 357. -------------------

Butterworth v. Hoe, 112 US. 50.. ---------------- 39, 105

Byer v. Harris, 77 N.J.L. 304---------------------- :

Gatien +. Wises, 127 USB. $40. ......-.--------%3

Capital Traction Company v. Hof, 174 8.4. 5. can

Clark v. Commonwealth, 29 Pa. St. 129_.------------

Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264------------------

Commonwealth v. Di Stasio, 297 Mass. 347, certiorari

denied, 302 U.S. 683------------------------ 29, 30, 31

Crawford v. Howard, 9 Ga. 314-------------------- 31

Cromer v. Boinest, 27 S.C. 436--------------------- 3]

Donegan v. Dyson, 269 US. 49- ---------------- 28, 45, 50

Downs v. United States, 187 U.S. 496--------------- 70

Faber v. United States, 221 U.S. 649_----.---------- 70

Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. 570---- 93

Fassett, In re, 142 US. 479------------------------ 93

Federal Radio Commission v. General Electric Co., 281.

U.S. 464: :-2. tel i ol slo ee ees 39, 40, 109, 111

Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Co., 289

US. pie ete SS) ee) ae 109

Five Per Cent. Discount Cases, 243 U.S. 97---------- 76

Florida ex rel. Attorney General v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190,

writ of error dismissed sub nom. Gleason v. Wlovida, ,

Q@ Wall. 779__-.------------------------------- 31

Prd Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698-.------- 92, 93

Frdd-. Raly, OVUBM19_ 22222 36, 37, 38

Franklin Sugar Co. v. United States, 202 U.S. 580---- 70

Frischer & Co., In re, 16 Ct. Cust. App. 191---------- 66,

81, 82, 87, 88, 97, 103

Frischer cb Co. v. United States, 17 C.C.P.A. 494_.--.- 18

Garea v. State, 120 Tex. Crim. Rep. 147---~---------. 32

Goat and Sheepskin Co. v. United States, 206 U.S. 194. 70

Gordon v. United States, 117 U.S. 697..------------- 7; @

Gorman v. People, 17 Colo. 596 ----.--------------- ;

Greenwood v. State, 116 Ind. 485- --------------- petty

Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363. - - ----------- Bo

Hallowell v. Commons, 210 Fed. 793----.-----------

Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394-------

Hansen v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust. App. 1---------

Vv

Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579- ----------------- 3

Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409. ----------------- 97, 102, 113

Hoeninghaus v. United States, 172 U.S. 622__.------- 69

Hoover Company v. Coe, 325 U.S. 79...------- 106, 198, 113

Humel v. Hoogendorn, 5 Alaska 25 - - --------------- 30

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154

TE ea eek inane dguidGesesiuns 97

Jeffords v. Hine, 2 Ariz. 162.....------------------ 31, 33

Johnson v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 61 F. 2d 934--------- 28

Johnson Co. v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. App. 373.. 134

Kansas v. United States, 204 U.S. 331-------------- 100

Keller v. Potomac Electric Co., 261 U.S. 428--------- 11,

39, 40, 48, 98, 109

Lacy v. Barrett, 75 Mo. 469. - .-------------------- 32

Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103--.------------ 32

Lawder v. Stone, 187 U.S. 281--------------------- 70

Leary v. United States, 268 F. 2d 623...------------ 28

Lewis & Conger v. United States, 13 Ct. Cust. App. 22. 133

_ Lillie v. Trentman, 130 Ind. 16_.--.---------------- 32

Lockerty v. Phillips, 319 U.S. 182-..--------------- 95

Logan v. Harris, 213 Ark. 37. --------------------- o—

Lurk v. United States, 366 U.S. 712..-.------------- 3

Manning, In re, 139 U.S. 504...------------------- . 85

Mareellus v. Wright, 61 Mont. 274- ---------------- 31

Marine v. Lyon, 65 Féd. 992.._...---------------- 133

Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen, 356 U.S. 481-...----- 93

Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Assoc., Inc. v.

United States, 362 U.S. 458...----.-------------- 93

May v. City of Laramie, 58 Wyo. 240...--.--------- 31

McAllister v. United States, 141 U.S. 174-.-.-------- 81

' McCraw v. Williams, 74 Va. 510...---------------- 31

McDowell v. United States, 159 U.S. 596. ..-.----- 6, 28, 29

McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162....----------- - 106

McGregor v. Balch, 14 Vt. 428. -------------------- 31, 33

Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373 ...------------ 100

Moreno Rios v. United States, 256 F. 2d 68---.------ 32

Morgan v. State, 66 Okla. Crim. Rep. 205--..------- 30, 33

Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement

Co., 18 How. 272... .-..-..-------------- 90, 91, 93, 97

Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346_.....-.---.--- 97

a ar eg ge eae ee

VI

Cases—Continued Pag

National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater Transfer

Co., , 337 th Hen a ncenncbsnsbbeneitsl sue 18,

20, 43, 51, 94, 99, 102, 111, 112

Newman v. Frizzell, 238 U.S. 537__-...------------ 34

Nicholas & Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 34___.___-- 76

Nishimura Ekiu v. United States, 142 U.S. 651_.__-_-- 93

Northern Pigment Co., In re, 22 C.C.P.A. 166, 71 F

a a ee ae. > {Td BEE TI} NBS BOR. Te 103

Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425___...--_--_-- 29, 35

’ Norwegian Nitrogen Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 294. 76

O’ Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516___.------- ll,

23, 39, 40, 41, 42, 48, 53, 76, 83, 85, 913, 109, 110, 112

Orion Co., In re, 22 C.C.P.A. 149, 71 F. 2d 458____-- 103

Orme v. Commonwealth, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1412__-____-- 30, 31

Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 9 Wheat. 738_... 97

Passavant v. United States, 148 U.S. 214_....----.--- 93

People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480_......-..---------- 30

People v. Townsend, 214 Mich. 267....-...--------- 30

People ex rel. Ballou v. Bangs, 24 Ill. 184_.-._-__.--- 30, 33

Povaene.¢. Bae, 307 US. GR6-. oon 5 cis 106

Pope v. United States, 323 U.S. 1__------ 20, 46, 53, 100, 103

Postmaster-General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 136....._---- “4

Postum Cereal Co. v. California Fig Nut Co., 272 US.

___, Me oe 22, 39, 49, 78, 98, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109

Principality of Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U.S. 313_. = 101

Pringle v. State, 108 Miss. 802_.........-.--------- 30, 31

Prosser v. United States, 1 Ct. Cust..App. 550_...---- 72

Ridout v. State, 161 Tenn. 248_........----..-----. 31, 33

Hises t. Pea, 4 AM MB, fon cn tcitdee as cei cs RES 32

Rogers v. Beauchamp, 102 Ind. 33_....------------- 30

Salyer v. Napier, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 172_---...-------- 32

Sanborn v. United States, 27 C. Cls. 485, vaniiheane

to permit appeal denied, Jn re Sanborn, 148 US.

TD ccc auticansmcscdinkabd th Jginh sisi 113

Schlungger v. State, 113 Ind. 295_-.._------ Cokes 32

Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282.__-.:---.- 49, 116

Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U.S. 311..--..-------- 132

Snow v. State, 134 Tex. Crim. App. 263_..--..---.-- 31, 33

Spradling & Thomas v. State, 17 Ala. 440_..-_------ 30, 33

State v.-Blancett, 24 N. Mex. 433__......----------- 30, 32

State v. Britton, 27 Wash. 2d 336_.......----------- 31

State v. Brown, 12 Minn. 538_......-..---.-------- 30

State v. Carroll, 38 Conn. 449.............--.------ 30

VIL

Cases—Continued Page

State v. Carter; 49 W. Va. 700. ...:-..2-.--- 22-2. 31

State v. Harden, 177 N.C. 580_______ ee De tts 30, 32

State v. Holmes, 12 Wash. 169____________________. 32

ee T. Be WB TRE, Goo noc co pwdnnancukidcavak 31

State v. Malcom, 39 Ida. 185________.-___..______- 30

State v. Miller, 71 Kan. 401_...........2.:...-.... 30

Gaal ¥. Bieeer, 194 Mie, BOR oso cccneth cvccaiai/e nace 32

SR es I IP INS, Acs cad atin eich in ce csc ges 31

State v. Rich, 20 Mo. 393___..-_______- Citicdiaie 30, 33

State v. Sadler, 51 La. Ann. Rep. 1397_____..._____- 30, 33

State v. Schuermann, 146 La. 110_.__._____________- 32

State v. Williams, 61 Kan. 739__....____._________- 33

State of Florida v. Gleason, 12 Fla. 190:._._________- 33

State ex rel. Bockmeier v. Ely, 16 N.D. 569__-_______- 33

State ex rel. James v. Deakyne, 44 Del. 217__--...___- 31

State ex rel. Madden v. Crawford, 207 Ore. 76_.__----- 31

Stiess v. State, 103 Ohio St. 33_........_........__- 30, 33

Stone v. Whitridge, White & Co., 129 Fed. 33, reversed

sub nom. United States v. Whitridge, 197 U.S.135_.-. 133

Strahl, Ex parte, 16 Ia. 360_.......2..-...........- 31, 33

_ Sylvia Lake Co. v. Northern Ore Co., 242 N.Y. 144,

certiorari denied, 273 U.S. 695____._______________ 29, 30, 33

Territory v. Mattoon, 21 Haw. 672___..-._.________- 30

Tucker v. Myers’ Estate, 151 Neb. 359______________ 30

Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568-..__.-.-_-___- 97

United States v. Aetna Explosires Co., 256 U.S. 402_-_- 76

United States v. American-Foreign Steamship Corp.,

Oe Bie sds Dh caw dile he eos cece nns 7, 34, 35, 37

United States v. American Sugar Refining Co., 202 U.S.

hice anccipepa tains bicpicinteebiotaknestdidies dasa Nei gee ot 70

United States v. Ballin, 144 U.S. 1_.___.--.__-_- shes 69

United States v. Burr, 159 U.S. 78....--..----__-__- 69

United States v. Bush & Co., 310 U.S. 371__-__---_-- 76

United States v. Claflin, 97 U.S. 546___._....______- 114

United States v. Duell, 172 U.S. 576—_.-- 22, 45, 50, 105, 106

United States v. Ferreira, 13 How. 40___..-.__-- 97, 102, 113

United States v. Fish, 268 U.S. 607___._.________.__ 76

United States v. G. Falk & Brother, 204 U.S. 143____- 70

United States v. Jahn, 155 U.S. 109_______________. 69

United States v. Kurtz, 5 Ct. Cust. App. 144________- 133

United States v. Lies, 170 U.S. 628____...___._.___. 69

United States v. Macy & Co., 13 Ct. Cust. App. 245... 134