In the matter of jurisdiction the United States Supreme Court has been decidedly inconsistent. This tribunal at first followed the opinion of Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of _Osborn_ v. _United States Bank_,[79] that "when a question to which the judicial power of the United States is extended by the Constitution forms an ingredient of the original cause it is in the power of Congress to give the Circuit Courts the jurisdiction of that cause, although other questions of fact or of law may be involved." Prior to the rise of the Negro to the status of so-called citizenship the court built upon this decision the prerogative of examining all judicial matters pertaining to the Federal Government until it made itself the sole arbiter in all important constitutional questions and became the bulwark of nationalism. After some reaction the court resumed that position in all of its decisions except those pertaining to the Negro; for in the recent commercial expansion of the country involving the litigation of unusually large property values, the United States Supreme Court has easily found grounds for jurisdiction where economic rights are concerned; but just as easily disclaims jurisdiction where human rights are involved in cases in which Negroes happen to be the complainants. The fairminded man, the patriot of foresight, observes, therefore, with a feeling of disappointment this prostitution of an important department of the Federal Government to the use of the reactionary forces in the United States endeavoring to whittle away the essentials of the Constitution which guarantees to all persons in this country all the rights enjoyed under the most progressive democracy on earth. Since the Civil War the United States Supreme Court instead of performing the intended function of preserving the Constitution by democratic interpretation, has by its legislative decisions practically stricken therefrom so many of its liberal provisions and read into the Constitution so much caste and autocracy that discontent and radicalism have developed almost to the point of eruption. C. G. WOODSON FOOTNOTES: [1] _McCulloch_ v. _Maryland_, 4 Wheaton, 416. [2] _Ibid._, 416. [3] _Ibid._, 416. [4] _Dred Scott_ v. _Sanford_, 19 Howard, 399. [5] 16 Peters, 539, 612. [6] _Dred Scott_ v. _Sanford_, 19 Howard, 399. [6a] 21 Howard, 506. [7] 6 Howard, 344. [8] 94 U.S., 113. [9] 16 Wall., 678. [10] This was held in _Township of Queensburg_ v. _Culver_ (19 Wall., 83), in _Township of Pine Grove_ v. _Talcott_ (19 Wall., 666), and in Massachusetts in _Worcester_ v. _Western R. R. Corporation_ (4 Met., 564). [11] _Storey on Bailments_, Sec. 475-6, and _Rex_ v. _Ivens_, 7 Carrington & Payne, 213; 32, E. C. L., 495. [12] 16 Wall., 36. [13] 100 U. S., 303. [14] 100 U. S., 306. [15] 103 U. S., 386. [16] _Ex Parte Virginia_, 100 U. S., 346-7. [17] 14 statutes, 27, Chapter 31. [18] 16 statutes, 140, Chapter 114.