CHAPTER IV THE DISTRICT COURT (Continued)-MISCELLANEOUS JURIS DICTION 26. Penalties, Forfeitures, and Seizures. 27. 28. 29. 30. Same-Nature and Form. Same-Nature and Form. Particular Classes of Litigation, Including Questions under the PENALTIES, FORFEITURES, AND SEIZURES 26. The district court has jurisdiction of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States, and of all seizures on land and on waters not within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The ninth clause of section 24 of the Judicial Code gives the district court jurisdiction "of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States," and the third clause of the same section gives it jurisdiction of all seizures on land and on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. SAME-NATURE AND FORM 27. These proceedings are against the offender or against the property or both. Suits for penalties are in the form of an ordinary common-law action on a money demand. Suits for forfeitures against the property are in the form of an information in rem. They partake both of a civil and a criminal nature, possessing certain attributes of each. Penalties and forfeitures are common all through the federal statutes, in connection with the navigation laws, the customs laws, the internal revenue laws, etc. They usually prescribe a penalty against the offender, and, where the offense is sufficiently grave, a forfeiture of the property engaged in the violation of law. In some of the statutes, the property itself is treated as the offender, independent of the question of ownership. In such case the procedure against the property as an offending thing is independent of the procedure against the owner. In fact, it is possible for the owner to be acquitted and the property condemned in such case. Other proceedings make the act of the owner and the forfeiture of the property so interwoven that the one is an incident of the other. The special statute must be referred to in each case, to ascertain whether the case falls under one or the other of these classes. Under the first of these two clauses "suits for penalties and forfeitures” mean civil actions.1 Under section 42 of the Judicial Code all pecuniary penalties and forfeitures may be sued for and recovered, either in the district where they accrue, or in the district where the offender is found; and, under section 45, proceedings on seizures, for forfeiture under any law of the United States, made on the high seas, may be prosecuted in any district into which the property so seized is brought, and proceedings instituted. Proceedings on such seizures made within any district shall be prosecuted in the district where the seizure is made, except in cases where it is otherwise provided. 1 The Little Ann, Fed. Cas. No. 8,397; U. S. v. Mann, Fed. Cas. No. 15,718. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 284; Cent. Dig. §§ 820-831; "War," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 2; Cent. Dig. § 7. Suits for penalties are in the form of an ordinary common-law action on a money demand. Suits for forfeitures against the property are in the form of an information in rem. These procedures partake both of a civil and a criminal nature. Where no fine or imprisonment is imposed, they are civil in their form-so much so, indeed, that the government has an appeal. But they are so far criminal in their nature that a defendant cannot be required to give evidence against himself. On the other hand, in a civil action sounding in dollars and cents, the evidence can be taken by deposition, and the constitutional provision in reference to confronting the accused with witnesses does not prevent its being so taken. Where the act of the owner is so connected with the illegal use of the property as to make it an essential element of the offense, his acquittal would bar a procedure in rem against the property. These cases are triable by a jury, but the parties may waive a jury. Where the violation of law by the thing itself is independent of the act of the owner, the procedure against the thing and the prosecution of the owner are distinct, and a forfeiture of the thing may be decreed 2 Hepner v. U. S., 213 U. S. 103, 29 Sup. Ct. 475, 53 L. Ed. 720, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 739, 16 Ann. Cas. 960; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. U. S., 220 U. S. 559, 31 Sup. Ct. 612, 55 L. Ed. 582. They are so far civil that a recovery may be had on a preponderance of evidence. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 165 Fed. 833, 91 C. C. A. 519. See "Aliens," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 58; “Penalties," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 16; Cent. Dig. §§ 13-16. 3 LEES v. U. S., 150 U. S. 476, 14 Sup. Ct. 163, 37 L. Ed. 1150. See "Courts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 414; Cent. Dig. § 1109; "Witnesses," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 300; Cent. Dig. §§ 1242, 12422. 4 U. S. v. Zucker, 161 U. S. 475, 16 Sup. Ct. 641, 40 L. Ed. 777. See "Criminal Law," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 662; Cent. Dig. §§ 3, 1538-1548. 5 Chantangco v. Abaroa, 218 U. S. 476, 31 Sup. Ct. 34, 54 L. Ed. 1116. See "Judgment," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 559; Cent. Dig. §§ 1077, 1078. • Henderson's Distilled Spirits, 14 Wall. 44, 20 L. Ed. 815. See "Jury," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) §§ 28, 29; Cent. Dig. §§ 176–203. without a conviction of the owner.' The procedure, on a libel of information, which is by nature largely an admiralty proceeding, or at least based on the practice of the admiralty court, is required by admiralty rule 22 of the Supreme Court to state the place of seizure, whether on land or on the high seas, or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, and the district within which the property is brought, and where it then is. The information or libel of information shall also propound in distinct articles the matters relied on as grounds or causes of forfeiture, and aver the same to be contrary to the form of the statute or statutes of the United States in such case provided, as the case may require, and shall conclude with a prayer of due process to enforce the forfeiture, and give notice to all persons concerned in interest to appear and show cause at the return day of the process why the forfeiture should not be decreed. By section 923 of the Revised Statutes, in such cases fourteen days' notice of the seizure and libel shall be given by causing the substance of the libel, with the order of the court thereon, setting forth the time and place appointed for trial, to be inserted in some newspaper published near the place of seizure, and by posting up the same in the most public manner, for the space of fourteen days, at or near the place of trial, and proclamation shall be made in such manner as the court shall direct; and, if no person appears and claims the property or bonds it, the court can proceed to hear and determine the cause according to law. By section 1047 of the United States Revised Statutes, suits for penalties or forfeitures are limited to five years, except where there are special provisions in special cases. Statutory forfeitures, unlike common-law forfeitures, 7 U. S. v. The Three Friends, 166 U. S. 1, 17 Sup. Ct. 495, 41 L. Ed. 897. See "Neutrality Laws," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4. 8 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 686. U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 727. take effect, not from the date of sentence, but from the commission of the offense, even as against an innocent purchaser.10 The draft of the Judicial Code submitted by the Revision Committee shows that this ninth clause of section 24 of the Code (U. S.. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 135) was intended to include the special provision embodied in paragraph 6 of section 563 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 455), conferring jurisdiction on the district court of suits under section 3490 of the Revised Statutes against persons making false claims against the United States.12 11 Powers of Secretary of Treasury Under sections 5293 and 5294 of the Revised Statutes,18 the Secretary of the Treasury is given a large discretion in remitting penalties incurred where no intent to violate the law seems to exist; and it is but just to the department of the treasury to say that, in the exercise of this discretion, great generosity and mercy have been shown, as against parties innocent of any intent to violate the law. This power may be exercised by the Secretary of the Treasury even in suits brought by informers before actual trial and judgment, and these sections giving him this power are not unconstitutional, as violating the pardoning power of the President.14 10 U. S. v. Stowell, 133 U. S. 17, 10 Sup. Ct. 244, 33 L. Ed. 555; 581 Diamonds v. U. S., 119 Fed. 556, 56 C. C. A. 122, 60 L. R. A. 595. See "Customs Duties," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 130; Cent. Dig. §§ 296-315. 11 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 2328. 12 U. S. v. Shapleigh, 54 Fed. 126, 4 C. C. A. 237. See "United States," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 122; Cent. Dig. § 110. 13 U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 3605-3607. Some of these powers are now vested in the Department of Commerce and Labor. 32 Stat. 825, 829 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 122, § 10). 14 The Laura, 114 U. S. 411, 5 Sup. Ct. 881, 29 L. Ed. 147. See "Pardon," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 4; Cent. Dig. § 5. |