lly the same argument as that of Justice
Brewer. He observed: "The court in effect says that although it may
know that the record fails to show a case within the original
cognizance of the Circuit Court, it may close its eyes to that fact,
and review the case on its merit." In view of the adjudged cases, he
could not agree that the failure of parties to raise a question of
jurisdiction relieved this court of its duty to raise it upon its own
motion.

There was thereafter presented a petition for modification of judgment
and for a rehearing June 1, 1903. The court ordered the decree of
affirmance changed adding these words: "So far as such decree orders
that the petition be dismissed, but without prejudice to such further
proceedings as the petitioner may be advised to make."

The case of _Giles_ v. _Teasley_[65] was, to some extent, of the same
sort. A Negro of Alabama who had previously been a voter and who had
complied with the reasonable requirements of the board of
registration, was refused the right to vote, for, as he alleged, no
reason other than his race and color, the members of the board having
been appointed and having acted under the provision of the State
constitution of 1901. He sued the members of the board for damages and
for such refusal in an action, and applied for a writ of mandamus to
compel them to register him, alleging in both proceedings the denial
of his rights under the Federal Constitution and that the provisions
of the State Constitution were repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment.
The complaint had been dismissed on demurrer and the writ refused, the
highest court of the State holding that if the provisions of the
constitution were repugnant to the Fifteenth Amendment, they were void
and that the board of registers appointed thereunder had no existence
and no power to act and would not be liable for a refusal to register
him, and could not be compelled by writ of mandamus to do so; that if
the provisions were constitutional, the registrars had acted properly
thereunder and their action was not reviewable by the courts.

"The right of the Supreme Court to review the decisions of the highest
court of a State," said the national tribunal, "is even in cases
involving the violations by the provisions of a State constitution of
the Fifteenth Amendment, circumscribed by rules established by law,
and in every case coming to the court on writ of error or appeal the
question of jurisdiction must be