[70] 56 Stat. 31 (1942), -- 204; 50 U.S.C.A. 924 (App.).
[71] Freeman _v._ Howe, 24 How. 450 (1861); Gaines _v._ Fuentes, 92 U.S.
10 (1876); Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908).
[72] Langnes _v._ Green, 282 U.S. 531 (1931); Riehle _v._ Margolies, 270 U.S. 218 (1929), and Essanay Film Mfg. Co. _v._ Kane, 258 U.S. 358 (1922). _See also_ Hill _v._ Martin, 296 U.S. 393, 403 (1935); Kohn _v._ Central Distributing Co., 306 U.S. 531, 534 (1939); and Oklahoma Packing Co. _v._ Oklahoma Gas and Electric Co., 309 U.S. 4, 9 (1940).
[73] 254 U.S. 443 (1921).
[74] Lauf _v._ E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938); New Negro Alliance _v._ Sanitary Grocery Co., 303 U.S. 552 (1938).
[75] In addition to the cases cited in note 2, [Transcriber"s Note: Reference is to Footnote 74, above.] _see_ Milk Wagon Drivers" Union _v._ Lake Valley Farm Products Co., 311 U.S. 91, 100-103 (1940).
[76] 319 U.S. 182 (1943).
[77] Ibid. 187, quoting Cary _v._ Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245 (1845).
[78] 321 U.S. 414 (1944).
[79] Washington-Southern Navigation Co. _v._ Baltimore Co., 263 U.S. 629 (1924).
[80] 10 Wheat. 1 (1825).
[81] 106 U.S. 272, 280 (1882).
[82] Washington-Southern Navigation Co. _v._ Baltimore Co., 263 U.S.
629, 635, 636 (1924).
[83] McDonald _v._ Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 266 (1915); Griffin _v._ Thompson, 2 How. 244, 257 (1844).
[84] Gumbel _v._ Pitkin, 124 U.S. 131 (1888); Covell _v._ Heyman, 111 U.S. 176 (1884), and Buck _v._ Colbath, 3 Wall. 334 (1866).
[85] Eberly _v._ Moore, 24 How. 147 (1861); Arkadelphia Milling Co. _v._ St. Louis S.W.R. Co., 249 U.S. 134 (1919).
[86] Gagnon _v._ United States, 193 U.S. 451, 458 (1904).
[87] 2 Wall. 123, 128-129 (1864).
[88] 253 U.S. 300 (1920).
[89] Ibid. 312.
[90] Ex parte Secombe, 19 How. 9, 13 (1857).
[91] 4 Wall. 333 (1867).
[92] Ibid. 378-380. For an extensive treatment of disbarment and American and English precedents thereon, _see_ Ex parte Wall, 107 U.S.
265 (1883).
[93] Reorganization of the Judiciary, Hearings on S. 1392; 75th Cong., 1st sess., 1937, Pt. 3, p. 491. Justices Van Devanter and Brandeis approved the letter. For earlier proposals to have the Court sit in divisions, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court, pp. 81-83, (New York, 1928).
[94] 1 Stat. 73-74, -- 2-3.
[95] Ibid. 73, 74-76; -- 4-5.
[96] 2 Stat. 89.
[97] 2 Stat. 132. For a general account of the events leading to the acts of 1801 and 1802, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court; a study in the federal judicial system (New York, 1928), pp. 25-32. This book also contains an excellent account of the organization and reorganization of the judiciary by statute from time to time. For another account of the acts of 1801 and 1802 _see_ Charles Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History (Boston, Rev. ed., 1932), 189-215.
[98] 1 Cr. 299, 309 (1803).
[99] 38 Stat. 208, 219-221.
[100] Prior to the act of 1913 Congress had voted to abolish the Commerce Court, but President Taft vetoed the bill which converted the Commerce Court judges into ambulatory circuit judges. For a general account of the abolition of the Commerce Court, _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court (New York, 1928), pp. 166-173.
[101] Evans _v._ Gore, 253 U.S. 245 (1920).
[102] 268 U.S. 501 (1925).
[103] 307 U.S. 277 (1939).
[104] Ibid. 278-282.
[105] Ibid. 282.
[106] 289 U.S. 516, 526 (1933).
[107] 289 U.S. 553 (1933).
[108] 36 Stat. 539 (1910). For the legislative history of the Commerce Court _see_ Felix Frankfurter and James M. Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court (New York, 1928), pp. 155-164.
[109] 56 Stat. 23, 31-33.
[110] In Lockerty _v._ Phillips, 319 U.S. 182 (1943), the limitations on the use of injunctions, except the prohibition against interlocutory decrees, was unanimously sustained.
[111] 321 U.S. 414 (1944).
[112] Ibid. 444.
[113] Ibid. 468.
[114] Pet. 511 (1928).
[115] Ibid. 546.
[116] Ibid. 546. Closely a.n.a.logous to the territorial courts are extraterritorial and consular courts created in the exercise of the foreign relations power. _See_ In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453 (1891).
[117] 279 U.S. 438 (1929).
[118] Ibid. 451.