State courts. could not reach those cases, and, consequently, the injunction of the Constitution, that the judicial power shall be vested, would be disobeyed. It would seem, therefore, to follow, that Congress are bound to create some inferior courts, in which to vest all that jurisdiction which, under the Constitution, is ex elusively vested in the United States, and of which the Supreme Court cannot take original cognizance. They might establish one or more inferior courts; they might parcel out the jurisdiction among such courts, from time to time, at their own pleasure. But the whole judicial power of the United States should be, at all times, vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under its authority. This construction will be fortified by an attentive examination of the second section of the third article. The words are the judicial power shall extend, etc. Much minute and elaborate criticism has been employed upon these words. It has been argued that they are equivalent to the words may' extend, and that extend means to widen to new cases not before within the scope of the power. For the reasons which have been already stated, we are of opinion that the words are used in an imperative sense. They import an absolute grant of judicial power. They cannot have a relative signification applicable to powers already granted; for the American people had not made any previous grant. The Constitution was for a new government, organized with new sub stantive powers, and not a mere supplementary character to a government already existing. The consideration was a compact between States; and its structure and powers were wholly unlike those of the National Government. The Constitution was an act of the people of the United States to supersede the confederation, and not to be ingrafted on it, as a stock through which it was to receive life and nourishment.