269 U.S. 302 - Ex parte Gruber — 269 U.S. 302

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1965

5 federal appellate ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1No. —. Original.

¶2The provision of the Constitution granting this Court original juris- • diction “ in all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls” refers to diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the United States by foreign powers, and not to those representing this country abroad. ^

¶3Leave to file denied.

¶4 *303Application for leave to file a petition and for a rule directing the consul general of the United States at Montreal to show cause why .a writ of mandamus should not issue against him.

¶5Mr. Marcus Gruber, pro se.

¶6Mr. Justice Sutherland

¶7delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶8This is an application for leave to file a petition and for a rule directing Albert Halstead, Consul General of. the United States at Montreal, Canada, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue commanding -him to visa the passport or the certificate of origin and identity presented to him by one Rosa Porter, a citizen of Russia, who recently arrived in Montreal from Russia and from whom petitioner, a relative, desires a visit in the United States of several months’ duration. We do not review the averments of the petition, since, other questions aside, it is clear that this court is without original jurisdiction.

¶9 Article III, § 2, cl. 2, of the Constitution provides that this court shall have original jurisdiction “ in all cases . affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls.” Manifestly, this refers to diplomatic and consular representatives accredited to the United States by foreign powers, not to those representing this country abroad. Milward v. McSaul, 17 Fed. Cas. 425, 426, No. 9624. The ’provision, no doubt, was inserted in view of the important and sometimes delicate nature of our relation.*, and intercourse with foreign governments. It is a privilege, not of the official, but of the sovereign or government which' he represents, accorded from high considerations of public policy, considerations which plainly do not apply to the United States in its own territory. See generally Davis v. *304Packard, 7 Pet. 276, 284; Marshall v. Critico, 9 East 447; Valarino v. Thompson, 7 N. Y. 576, 578; The Federalist, No. 80, Ford’s Ed., pp. 531, 532-533, 537.

¶10The application is denied for want of original jurisdiction.