
    (1 Court of Claims R., p. 1; 2 Wallace R., p. 561.)
    David Gordon et al., administrators or Fisher, appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants’ Appeal.
    
    
      The Amended Court of Claims act, (12 Stat. Z.,p.765,) provides for appeals from ■the Court of Claims to the Supreme Court, (sec. 5,) hut contains a provision, (sec. 14,) since repealed, Act 17tli March, 1866, (14 Stat. L., p. 9,) forbidding the payment of claims “passed iipon by the Court of Claims till after an appropriation therefor shall be estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury.” While this provision remains in force the claimants below appeal, and the case eomes to a hearing in the Supreme Court.
    
    The Amended Court of Claims act, (12 Stat. L., p. 765, sec. 14,) wherein it provides that “no money shall be paid out of the Treasury for any claims passed upon by the Court of Claims till after an appropriation therefor shall be estimated for by the Secretary of the Treasury,” by necessary implication, ( gives to the head of an Executive Department authority to revise the decisions of that court, and thereby denies to it the judicial power from the exercise of which, only under the Constitution, appeals can be taken to the Supreme Court.
    
    
      Messrs. Goodrich and Winter Mavis in support of the right of appeal.
    
      Mr. Assistant Solicitor McPherson opposed.
    
      
       Where the decision is stated by the reporter, but the opinion of the Chief Justice is not given.
    
    
      
      But since the repeal of this provision the Supreme Court has exercised jurisdiction without question. (See Klein’s Case, post.)
      
    
   Chief Justice Chase

delivered the opinion of the court:

The court has fully considered the able and instructive arguments of counsel upon the question of jurisdiction, which presents itself at the threshold of this cause, and has found itself constrained to the conclusion that under the Constitution it can exercise no appellate jurisdiction over the decisions of the Court of Claims.

We think that the authority given to the head of an executive department, by necessary implication, in the fourteenth section of the amended Court of Claims act, to revise all the decisions of this court requiring payment of money, denies to it the judicial power from the exercise of which appeals can be taken to this court.

The reasons which necessitate this conclusion may be more fully announced hereafter. At present we restrict ourselves to this general statement, and to the direction that the case be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Justices Miller and Field dissented.  