Such a certificate is, however, not sufficient to confer jurisdiction to review the judgment of a state court under § 709, Revised Statutes. That there was set up and denied some claim or right under the Constitution or a statute of the United States must appear upon the record, and such a certificate is only of value to make more definite or certain that the Federal right was definitely asserted and decided. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 183; Louisville Nashville R.R. Co. v. Smith, 204 U.S. 551. The Federal question relied upon to sustain the writ of error to this court concerns the construction and application of the Employers' Liability Act of April 22, 1908, 35 Stat. 65, c. 149.
The mind of the state court was directed to the fact that a right protected by treaty was relied upon. French v. Hopkins, 124 U.S. 524; Butler v. Gage, 138 U.S. 61; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 184; Powell v. Brunswick Co., 150 U.S. 400, 433; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U.S. 653. Submitting this case to these tests, it will be manifest that it can be readily inferred from the California opinion that that court was informed by contention of the plaintiff in error that a Federal right was intended to be asserted and denied the right so asserted.
Argued March 20, 21, 1900. Decided April 9, 1900.Dismissed on the authority of Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 183, and other cases cited in the opinion of the court. THE case is stated in the opinion of the court.
A certificate or statement by the state court that a federal question has been presented to it and necessarily passed upon is not controlling. While such a certificate or statement may aid this Court in the examination of the record, it cannot avail to foreclose the inquiry which it is our duty to make or to import into the record a federal question which otherwise the record wholly fails to present. As to the insufficiency of a certificate by the chief justice or presiding justice of the state court, see Railroad Co. v. Rock, 4 Wall. 177, 178, 180; Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U.S. 433, 439; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 183; Henkel v. Cincinnati, 177 U.S. 170, 171; Home for Incurables v. New York, 187 U.S. 155, 158; Fullerton v. Texas, 196 U.S. 192, 194; Louisville Nashville R. Co. v. Smith, Huggins Co., 204 U.S. 551, 561; Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. Duvall, 225 U.S. 477, 481; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 296 U.S. 535; Purcell v. New York Central R. Co., 296 U.S. 545. In Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Buckingham's Executors, 5 How. 317, this Court was asked to decide a question which was said to be presented under the contract clause with respect to the validity of a statute of Ohio. The Supreme Court of that State entered upon its record an elaborate certificate stating that the validity of the statute was drawn in question upon the ground that as applied to the charter of the plaintiffs in error it "impaired the obligations thereof, and was repugnant to the constitution of the United States, and that the decision of this court [the Ohio court] was in favor of the validity of the said
In Roby v. Colehour, 146 U.S. 153, 159, it was said that `our jurisdiction being invoked, upon the ground that a right or immunity, specially set up and claimed under the Constitution or authority of the United States, has been denied by the judgment sought to be reviewed, it must appear from the record of the case either that the right, so set up and claimed, was expressly denied, or that such was the necessary effect in law of the judgment.' `If it appear from the record, by clear and necessary intendment, that the Federal question must have been directly involved, so that the state court could not have given judgment without deciding it, that will be sufficient.' Powell v. Brunswick County, 150 U.S. 433, 440; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180; Chicago, Burlington c. Railroad v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226."
The due process clause does not take up the laws of the several States and make all questions pertaining to them constitutional questions, nor does it enable this court to revise the decisions of the state courts upon questions of state law. Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 186; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U.S. 103, 112; Castillo v. McConnico, 168 U.S. 674, 683-684. The questions presented, other than those relating to the validity of the state board's adjudication, all turned exclusively upon the law of the State, and the state court's decision of them is controlling.
. v. Pitcairn Coal Co., 215 U.S. 481; Boston Maine R.R. v. Hooker, 233 U.S. 97; Chicago Alton R.R. v. Kirby, 225 U.S. 155; Chicago Rock Island Ry. v. Hardwick, 226 U.S. 426; Cincinnati c. R.R. v. Slade, 216 U.S. 78, 83; Fowler v. Samson, 164 U.S. 252; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78, 84; K.C.S. Ry. v. Albers Commission Co., 223 U.S. 573; Loeb v. Trustees, 179 U.S. 472, 481; Louis. Nash. R.R. v. Mottley, 219 U.S. 467; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McGrew, 188 U.S. 291; Mitchell Coal Co. v. Penna. R.R., 230 U.S. 247, 258-9; McNeil v. Southern Ry., 202 U.S. 543; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Penna. R.R., 230 U.S. 304; National Lumber Assn. v. Atlantic Coast Line, 14 I.C.C. 154; N.Y. New Haven R.R. v. Int. Comm. Com., 200 U.S. 361, 391; Oxley Stave Co. v. Butler Co., 166 U.S. 648; Penna. R.R. v. Int. Mining Co., 230 U.S. 184; Penna. R.R. v. Puritan Coal Co., 237 U.S. 121; Penna. R.R. v. Clark, 238 U.S. 456; Pierce Co. v. Wells, Fargo Co., 236 U.S. 278; Robinson v. Balt. Ohio R.R., 222 U.S. 506; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180; Southern Ry. v. Reid, 222 U.S. 424; Swearingen v. St. Louis, 185 U.S. 38, 45; Tex. Pac. Ry. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U.S. 426; Thomas v. Illinois, 209 U.S. 258; Victor Fuel Co. v. Atchison c. Ry., 14 I.C.C. 119; Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U.S. 485, 488. MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no Federal question in this case and the judgment of the Missouri Supreme Court should be affirmed. Astor v. Merritt, 111 U.S. 401; Powell v. Supervisor, 150 U.S. 113; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 941; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 299; Lohmeyer v. Company, 214 Missouri, p. 688; Brown v. Railroad, 175 Missouri, p. 189; Ross v. Company, 241 Mo. 299. The Missouri anti-trust statutes are constitutional and have been so held many times.
Chapman v. Goodnow, 123 U.S. 540; Chicago Ins. Co. v. Needles, 113 U.S. 574; Bell's Gap R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 134 U.S. 232; Chicago, B. Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226; St. Louis Consol. Coal Co. v. Illinois, 185 U.S. 203. The record in this case not only discloses that the rights of the plaintiff in error under the Constitution were set up and were expressly denied, but such was the necessary effect in law of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Iowa. Appleby v. City of Buffalo, 221 U.S. 524; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180, 183; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86, 97. This court in an action at law has no jurisdiction to review the decision of the highest court of the State upon a pure question of fact, although a Federal question would or would not be presented according to the way in which the question of fact was decided.
This court has no jurisdiction. It does not appear from the record that a title, right, privilege or immunity was claimed under the Constitution, or a treaty, or a statute of or an authority exercised under the United States was set up in the state court and was passed upon adversely to plaintiff in error. Zadig v. Baldwin, 166 U.S. 485; Sayward v. Denny, 158 U.S. 180; Harding v. Illinois, 196 U.S. 78; California Powder Works v. Davis, 151 U.S. 389; Schuyler Nat. Bank v. Bollong, 150 U.S. 87; Capital City Dairy Co. v. Ohio, 183 U.S. 238. Where the provisions of the National Bank Act prohibit certain acts without imposing any penalty or forfeiture applicable to particular transactions which have been executed, their validity can be questioned only by the United States and not by private parties.