4200                 V. S. PACIFIC  RAILWAY .COMMISSION.
In Eapalje's Laws of Witnesses (section 301) the same doctrine is laid down. I find no trace of any authority or jurisdiction in the courts to issue a subpoena, or to make an order requiring a witness to attend before soine other court, or at some other place, to answer questions in a suit or controversy of which the court has no power detiuitely to hear and determine, with the exception of letters rogatory, and the statutory provisions providing for the examination of witnesses before commissioners appointed by a court of some other State or a foreign country, which provisions are but a substitute for letters rogatory. The jurisdiction in such cases rests upon the principle of international comity.
This whole subject is explained in 1st Greenleaf (14th edition, section 320, and note). But in those cases there is always a suit pendiug in the couit out of which the letters or the commissions issue. .
In my opinion the order asked for in this proceeding is in no sense judicial. Congress could just as well have authorized the Commission to invoke the aid of the United States marshal, and commanded him to seize the contumacious witness and carry him before the Commission and compel him to answer, or confine him in jail during the pleasure of tlnj Commissioners.
The fact that Congress has attempted to impose this duty upon the courts does not make it judicial; the courts determine the question.
In 2d Story on the Constitution (sec. 1777) it is said:
The functions of the judges of the courts of the United States are strictly and exclusively judicial. They can not, therefore, be called upon to advise the President in auy executive measure, or to give extra-judicial interpretation of law, or to act as commissioners in cases of pensions, or other like proceedings.
In support of the rule there stated he cites 5 Marshall's Life of Washington (ch. 6, pp. 433-441); Sergeant on Const, (ch. 29, p. 3o'3); Mar-bnry vs. Madison (1 Cranch, 171); Dewherst v. Coalthart (3 Dall. E., 409); Haj burn's Case (2 Dall. E., 409-410, and note); and to those may be added United States vs. Ferreira (13 Howard, p. 40, and note); Gordon vs. United States (117 U. S., 697).
The investigation aud inquiry authorized by the act creating this Commission are purely political, and it is the settled doctrine of the Supreme Court that in such cases the judicial department of the Goverment will not interfere. (Luther vs. Bordon, 7 Howard p. 1; State of Georgia vs. Stanton, 6 Wall., 50; Mississippi vs. Johnson, 4 Wall., 475.)
In Georgia vs. Stanton the decision of the court dismissing the bill is put upon the sole ground of want of jurisdiction, because the questions involved were purely political.
III.
But if the proceedings now before the court be judicial, does it fall within the judicial power of the courts of the United States ? Courts of the United States are not courts of inferior jurisdiction, but are courts of limited jurisdiction, and consequently the juiisdiction of the court must always be shown on the record, and depends upon two questions :
First. Has Congress extended the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter, or over the parties'?
Second. Is the act constitutional ?
First, as the provisions of the Constitution.
The first section of the third article of the Constitution of the United States provides that—
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish.