An Act to establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. — reading text

months, is to be inflicted; and shall also 1807; act of have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and March 3, 1815, sect. 4.] maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navi- Original cog- gation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made, on nizance in mari- waters which are navigable from the sea by vessels of ten or more tons time causes and of seizure under burthen, within their respective districts as well as upon the high seas;(«) the laws of the saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where United States. the common law is competent to give it; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as afore- said, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.(6) And shall also have cognizance, con- Concurrent current with the courts of the several States, or the circuit courts, as the jurisdiction. case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort only in viola- tion of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.(c) And shall also have cognizance, concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at com- mon law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.(d) And the trial of issues in fact, in the district Trial of fact courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime juris- by jury. diction, shall be by jury. Sec . 10. And be it further enacted, That the district court in Ken- Kentucky dis- tucky district shall, besides the jurisdiction aforesaid, have jurisdiction trict court. of all other causes, except of appeals and writs of error, hereinafter made [Obsolete.] cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same (a) Jurisdiction of the District Courts in cases of admiralty seizures, under laws of impost, navigation and trade. McDonough v. Danery, 3 Dall. 188 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. The Alerta, 3 Cranch, 359; 3 Cond. Rep. 425. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312 ; 6 Cond. Rep. 111. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 2. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. Penhallow et ah v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. United States v. Richard Peters, 3 Dall. 121 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Hudson et al.v. Guestier, 6 Cranch, 281 ; 2 Cond. Rep. 374. Brown v. The United States, 8 Cranch, 110 ; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391 ; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; 4 Cond. Rep. 322. Slocum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat. 1 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. The Bolina, 1 Gallis’C. C. R. 75. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 620 ; Bee’s D. C. R. 11. De Lovio v. Boit et al., 2 Gallis’ C. C. R. 398. The Abby, 1 Mason’s Rep. 360. The Little Ann, Paine’s C. C. R. 40. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilpin’s D. C. R. 473. The Catharine, 1 Adm. Decis. 104. (b) An information against a vessel under the act of Congress of May 22, 1794, on account of an alleged exportation of arms, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ; and an appeal from the District to the Circuit Court, in such a case is sustainable. It is also a civil cause, and triable without the intervention of a jury, under the 9th section of the judicial act. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Abby, 1 Mason, 360. The Little Ann, Paine’s C. C. R. 40. When the District and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the right to maintain the jurisdic- tion attaches to that tribunal which first exercises it, and obtains possession of the thing. The Robert Fulton, Paine’s C. C. R. 620. (c) Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction of all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of State authority, which by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the officer of the United States, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Mayberry et al., 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. (d) Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41. As an abstract question, it is difficult to understand on what ground a State court can claim jurisdiction of civil suits against foreign consuls. By the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers andconsuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gives to the district courts of the United States, exclusively of the courts of the several States, jurisdiction of all suits against consuls and vice consuls, except for certain offences enumerated in this act. Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters, 276. If a consul, being sued in a State court, omits to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards, on removing the judgment of the inferior court to a higher court by writ of error, claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege. If this was to be viewed merely as a personal privilege, there might be grounds for such a conclusion. But it cannot be so considered; it is the privilege of the country or government which the consul represents. This is the light in which foreign ministers are considered by the law of nations ; and our constitution and law seem to put con- suls on the same footing in this respect. Ibid. g2 78 FIRST CONGRESS. Sess . I. Ch . 20. 1789. manner as a circuit court, and writs of error and appeals shall lie from decisions therein to the Supreme Court in the same causes, as from a circuit court to the Supreme Court, and under the same regulations.(a) Maine district And the district court in Maine district shall, besides the jurisdiction court. [Obsolete.] herein before granted, have jurisdiction of all causes, except of appeals and writs of error herein after made cognizable in a circuit court, and shall proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court: And writs of error shall lie from decisions therein to the circuit court in the district of Massachusetts in the same manner as from other district courts to their respective circuit courts. Circuit courts Sec . 11. And he it further enacted, That the circuit courts shall original cogni- have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several zance where the States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where matter in dis- pute exceeds the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five five hundred hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs, or petitioners; or dollars. an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State.(b) And shall have (a) By an act passed February 24, 1807, the Circuit Court jurisdiction of the District Court of Kentucky was abolished. (&) The amount laid in the declaration is the sum in controversy. If the plaintiff receive less than the amount so claimed, the jurisdiction of the court is not affected. Green v. Liter, 8 Cranch, 229. Gor- don v. Longest, 16 Peters, 97. Lessee of Hartshorn v. Wright, Peters’ C. C. R. 64. By the 5th section of the act of February 21, 1794, “an act to promote the progress of the useful arts,” &c., jurisdiction in actions for violations of patent rights, is given to the Circuit Courts. Also by the act of February 15, 1819, original cognizance, as well in equity as at law, is given to the Circuit Courts of all actions, and for the violation of copy rights. In such cases appeals lie to the Supreme Court of the United States. So also in cases of interest, or disability of a district judge. Act of May 8, 1792, sec. 11; act of March 2, 1809, sec. 1; act of March 3, 1821. Jurisdiction in cases of injunctions on Treasury warrants of distress. Act of May 15, 1820, sec. 4. Jurisdiction in cases removed from State courts. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3, 1815, sec. 6. Jurisdiction in cases of assigned debentures. Act of March 2, 1799. Jurisdiction of crimes committed within the Indian territories. Act of March 30, 1830, sec. 15 ; act of April 30, 1816, sec. 4; act of March 3, 1817, sec. 2. Jurisdiction in bankruptcy. Act of August 19, 1841, chap. 9, [repealed.] Jurisdiction in cases where citizens of the same State claim title to land under a grant from a State other than that in which the suit is pending in a State court. Act of September 24, 1789, sec. 12. See Colson v. Lewis, 2 Wheat. 377 ; 4 Cond. Rep. 168. Jurisdiction where officers of customs are parties. Act of February 4, 1815, sec. 8; act of March 3, 1815, sec. 6; act of March 3, 1817, sec. 2. A circuit court though an inferior court in the language of the constitution, is not so in the language of the common law ; nor are its proceedings subject to the scrutiny of those narrow rules, which the caution or jealousy of the courts at Westminster long applied to courts of that denomination ; but are entitled to as liberal intendments and presumptions in favour of their regularity, as those of any supreme court. Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8 ; 1 Cond. Rep. 205. The Circuit Courts of the United States have cognizance of all offences against the United States. What those offences are depends upon the common law applied to the sovereignty and authorities con- fided to the United States. The United States v. Coolidge, 1 Gallis’ C. C. R. 488, 495. Where the jurisdiction of the federal courts has once attached, no subsequent change in the relation or condition of the parties in the progress of the cause, will oust that jurisdiction. The United States v. Meyers, 2 Brocken, C. C. R. 516. All the cases arising under the laws of the United States :ire not, per se, among the cases comprised within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court, under the provisions of the 11th section of the judiciary act of 1789. The Postmaster General v. Stockton and Stokes, 12 Peters, 524. Jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts of the United States in suits between aliens and citizens of another State than that in which the suit is brought: The courts of the United States will entertain jurisdiction of a cause where all the parties are aliens, if none of them object to it. Mason et al. v. The Blaireau, 2 Cranch, 240; 1 Cond. Rep. 397. The Supreme Court understands the expressions in the act of Congress, giving jurisdiction to the courts of the United States “ where an alien is a party, or the suit is between a citizen of the State where the suit is brought, and a citizen of another State,” to mean that each distinct interest should be represented by persons, all of whom have a right to sue, or may be sued in the federal courts: that is, when the in- terest is joint, each of the persons concerned in that interest must be competent to sue or be liable to be sued in those courts. Strawbridge v. Curtis, 3 Cranch, 267 ; 1 Cond. Rep.