justice observes, in conclusion, that it is manifest that the judicial power of the United States is, in some cases, unavoidably exclusive of all state authority, and that in all others it may be made so at the election of Congress. We agree fully with this conclusion. The legislation of Congress has proceeded upon this supposition. The Judiciary Act of 1789, in its distribution of jurisdiction to the several Federal Courts, recognizes and is framed upon the theory that in all cases to which the judicial power of the United States extends, Congress may rightfully vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Federal Courts. It declares that in some cases, from their commencement, such jurisdiction shall be exclusive; in other cases it determines at what stage of procedure such jurisdiction shall attach, and how long and how far concurrent jurisdiction of the state courts shall be permitted. Thus, cases in which the United States are parties, civil causes of admiralty jurisdiction, and cases against consuls and vice-consuls, except for certain offenses, are placed, from their commencement, exclusively under the cognizance of the Federal Courts. "On the other hand, some cases, in which an alien or a citizen of another state is made a party, may be brought either in a federal or a state court at the option of the plaintiff; and if brought in the state court may be prosecuted until the appearance of the defendant, and then, at his option, may be suffered to remain there, or may be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. "Other cases, not included under these heads, but involving questions under the Constitution, laws, treaties, or authority of the United States, are only drawn within the control of the Federal Courts upon appeal or writ of error, after final judgment. "By subsequent legislation of Congress, and particularly by the legislation of the last four years, many of the cases, which by the Judiciary Act could only come under the cognizance of the Federal Courts after final judgment in the state courts, may be withdrawn from the concurrent jurisdiction of the latter courts at earlier stages, upon the application of the defendant. "The constitutionality of these provisions cannot be seriously questioned, and is of frequent recognition by both State and Federal Courts. "The cognizance of civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction vested in the district courts by the 9th section of the Judiciary Act, may be supported upon like considerations. It has been made exclusive by Congress, and that is sufficient, even if we should admit that in the absence of its legislation the State Courts might have taken cognizance of these causes. But there are many weighty reasons why it was so declared. "The admiralty jurisdiction,' says Mr. Justice Story, 'naturally connects itself, on the one hand, with our diplomatic relations and the duties to foreign nations and their subjects; and, on the other hand, with the great interests of navigation and commerce, foreign and domestic. There is, then, a peculiar wisdom in giving to the national government a jurisdiction of this sort which cannot be yielded, except for the general good, and which multiplies the securities for the public peace abroad, and gives to commerce and navigation the most encouraging support at home.' Com., Sec. 1672. "The case before us is not within the saving clause of the ninth section. That clause only saves to suitors 'the right of a common law remedy, where Vol. XI.-8. the common law is competent to give it.' It is not a remedy in the common law courts which is saved, but a common law remedy. A proceeding in rem, as used in the admiralty court, is not a remedy afforded by the common law; it is a proceeding under the civil law. When used in the common law courts, it is given by statute." The criminal jurisdiction of the United States is mainly vested in the district courts, although in some cases the Circuit Courts have concurrent jurisdiction. The United States courts have no common law criminal jurisdiction. "It is long since settled that the courts of the United States have no common law jurisdiction in criminal cases; that, so far as the United States are concerned, there are no common law crimes; and that therefore its courts cannot take cognizance of any act or omission as a crime unless it has been made such by an act of congress." 9912 The jurisdiction of the district courts over suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under any law of the United States is exclusive.13 " United States vs. Lewis, 36 Fed. Rep., 449. 13 Lees vs. United States, 150 U. S., 476. CHAPTER III. THE CIRCUIT COURTS. SECTION 6. STATUTORY PROVISIONS. Under the United States Statutes, the Circuit Courts of the United States have original cognizance1 concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of $2,000, and arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States, or treaties made under their authority, or in which controversy the United States are plaintiffs or petitioners, or in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states, or a controversy between citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different states, or a controversy between citizens of a State and foreign states, citizens, or subjects, in which the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid." 1 Rev. Stats., 629, cl. 1, as amended March 3, 1887, and corrected Aug. 13, 1888, 25 U. S. Stats., 433. Donnick vs. Railroad Co., 103 U. S., 11; International Bank of St. Louis vs. Faber, 79 Fed. Rep., 919; Bigelow vs. Nickerson, 34 U. S. App., 261; 70 Fed. Rep., 113; Central Trust Co. vs. Smith Atlantic & O. R. Co., 57, Fed. Rep., 536; Dwight vs. Central Vt. R. Co., 20 Blatchf., 200; Wheeler vs. Walton et al., 65 Fed. Rep., 720; Paine vs. Hook, 7 Wallace, 426; Davis vs. Life Association of America, 11 Fed. Rep., 781; Central Nat. Bank vs. Stevens, 169 U. S., 432; Short vs. Hepburn, 41 U. S. App., 520; 75 Fed. Rep., 113; In re Langford, 57 Fed. Rep., 570; Walker vs. Flint, 3 McCrary, 507; Erwin vs. Lowery, 7 Howard, 172. Vance vs. Vandercook Co., 170 U. S., 468; Kanouse vs. Martin, 15 Howard, 198; King VS. Wilson, 1 Dill, 555; Hill vs. Blascow R. Co., 41 Fed. Rep., 610; Werner vs. Murphy, 60 Fed. Rep., 769; Holt vs. Bergevin, 60 Fed. Rep., 1; Ex Parte Bradstreet, 7 Peters, 634; Fishback vs. Western Union Tel. Co., 161 U. S., 96; Citizen's Bank vs. Cannon, 164 U. S., 319; Brown vs. Webster, 156 U. S., 328; Cabot vs. McMaster, 61 Fed. Rep., 129; Holden vs. Utah & M. M. Co., 82 Fed. Rep. 209; Wheeler Bliss Mfg. Co. vs. Pickham, 69 Fed. Rep., 419. The Circuit Courts also have original jurisdiction in the following classes of cases:" First. Of all suits at common law where the United States, or any officer thereof suing under the authority of any act of Congress, are plaintiffs." Second. Of all suits at law or in equity, arising under any act providing for revenue from imports or tonnage, except civil cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and except suits for penalties and forfeitures; of all causes arising under any law providing internal revenue, and of all causes arising under the postal laws. Third. Of all suits and proceedings for the enforcement of any penalties provided by laws regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels. Fourth. Of all proceedings for the condemnation of property taken as prize, in pursuance of Section 5308, title, "Insurrection."7 Fifth. Of all suits arising under any law relating to the slave-trade. Sixth. Of all suits by the assignee of any debenture for drawback of duties, issued under any law for the collection of duties against the person to whom such debenture was originally granted, or against any indorser thereof, to recover the amount of such debenture. Seventh. Of all suits at law or in equity arising under the patent or copyright laws of the United States. Rev. Stats. Sec., 629. A number of the clauses in this section 5 Gibson vs. Peters, 150 U. S., 342; Spreckles Sugar Refinery Co. 542. 7 Union Ins. Co. vs. United States, 6 Wallace, 759. |