§ 366. Various acts of Congress give jurisdiction to state courts and magistrates in both civil cases, and for fines and forfeitures under the laws of the United States; but the state courts are not bound to assume jurisdiction in such cases.1 § 367. It has been questioned whether the state courts could issue a Habeas Corpus, and exercise jurisdiction in a case where the imprisonment was by an officer of the United States, or under pretext of the authority of the United States. The state courts, however, have exercised such jurisdiction, although no final decision has been had upon the question.2 § 368. No state court can issue an injunction upon any judgment in a court of the United States: nor can the state legislature annul the judgments, or destroy the rights acquired under them, or determine the extent of their jurisdiction. Nor can a state court, or authority, prescribe the rules or forms of proceedings, nor effect of process in the courts of the United States: nor issue a mandamus to an officer of the United States to compel him to perform duties devolved upon him by the laws of the United States." § 369. On the other hand, the national courts have no authority (in cases not within the appellate jurisdiction of the United States), to issue injunctions upon judgments in the state courts; or in any manner to interfere with their jurisdiction and proceedings."" § 370. It is a question unsettled, whether the United States courts have a Common Law jurisdiction? In the case of the United States vs. Hudson & Goodwin, tried for a libel on the President, the Supreme Court decided, by a majority, that they had no Common Law jurisdic 11 Kent's Comm. 375. 2 Idem; 10 Johnson's Rep. 328; 5 Hall's Law Journal, 82; 11 Mass. Reports, 68. 3 3 Story's Comm. 624; 7 Cranch, 279. 510 Wheaton, 21, 22, 51. 45 Cranch, 115. 66 Wheaton, 598. 8 7 Cranch, 32. 73 Story's Commentaries, 626. tion. In the case of the United States vs. Coolidge,' the Circuit Court for Massachusetts decided it had such jurisdiction in admiralty cases. The Supreme Court, however, adhered to their former opinion. In consequence of this division, and the opinions of different commentators, this point is not wholly settled.2 § 371. Another extensive subject of discussion in the courts of the United States, is the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the District Courts. The District Courts act as courts of Common Law, and also as courts of Admiralty. In England a difference existed between the Instance and Prize Courts. The former is defined to be the ordinary admiralty court, and the latter an extraordinary one, having jurisdiction only in time of war, and in prize cases. In the United States, however, the Supreme Court have determined that the District Courts have all the powers of courts of admiralty, whether as instance or prize courts.4 § 372. Chancellor Kent, who has made law classical in our country, has given a brief review of the powers of these courts, which may be stated in the following propositions. 1. As to the jurisdiction of Prize Courts. The prize jurisdiction extends to all captures in war made on the high seas. Prize goods are goods taken on the high seas by right of war, out of the hands of the enemy. The prize jurisdiction also extends to captures in foreign ports and harbors, and to captures made on land by naval forces. It extends to captures made in rivers, ports, and harbors of the captors' own country. The prize court extends also to all ransom bills upon captures at sea, and to money received as ransom or commutation on a capitulation to naval forces. § 373. If the prize be unwarrantably carried into a 11 Gallison, 188. 4 3 Dallas, 6. 21 Kent's Comm. 315. 3 Idem. 331. • Idem. 335. foreign port, and there delivered by the captors upon security, the prize court does not lose its jurisdiction over the capture and the questions incident to it. So, if the prize be lost at sea, or actually lying within a foreign neutral territory, the court has jurisdiction.' Prize courts act upon the thing instead of the person, and that notwithstanding any contract between the parties.2 Prize courts have likewise exclusive jurisdiction and discretion as to the allowance of freight, damages, expenses, and costs in all cases of capture, and as to all torts and personal injuries connected with captures.' 2. Criminal Jurisdiction of the Admiralty. The Act of September, 1789, gives to the District Courts, exclusive of the State Courts, and concurrent with the Circuit Courts, jurisdiction over crimes and offences cognizable by the authority of the United States, and committed within their districts, or upon the high seas, where only a moderate corporal punishment, or fine, or imprisonment is to be inflicted. As this confers juris diction only in minor crimes, it was a question whether the courts had any jurisdiction over cases of murder, &c. In the case of the United States against M'Gill,' it was decided they had not. The same was decided in Uni ted States vs. Bevans." It is now settled, that the federal courts, as courts of admiralty, are to exercise such criminal jurisdiction as is conferred upon them expressly by acts of Congress, and they are not to exercise any other." This limitation, however, does not extend to private prosecutions in the District Court to recover damages for a marine tort. § 374. As to the division between the jurisdiction of the Admiralty and the courts of Common Law. On the sea-shore, the jurisdiction of the admiralty is 11 Kent's Com. 336. 44 Dallas, 426. 61 Kent's Commentaries, 341. * Id. 337. 65 Wheaton, 76. 3 Idem. limited to low-water mark, and between that and highwater mark, where the sea cbbs and flows, the common law and admiralty have a divided jurisdiction. § 375. In the Circuit Court of the United States it has also been decided, that the admiralty jurisdiction extends to all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offences on the high seas, and in ports and havens, as far as the ebb and flow of the tide.2 It has been asked what cases come within the meaning of admiralty, and what of common law jurisdiction? It is now settled that all seizures under laws of import, navigation, and trade, if made upon tide-waters navigable from sea, are civil cases of admiralty jurisdiction.3 § 376. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the District Courts is exclusive. The Constitution extends the judicial authority of the United States to all cases of admiralty jurisdiction, and the act of Congress enacts, that the District Courts shall have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. 4. Jurisdiction of the Instance Courts. § 377. The Instance Courts take cognizance of crimes committed, and things done, and contracts not under seal, made on the bosom of the sea.^ The cause must arise wholly upon the sea to be within the admiralty jurisdiction. If the act be done partly on land and partly on water, the Common Law has the preference. § 378. The admiralty has cognizance of maritime hypothecations of vessels and goods in foreign ports, for repairs done, or necessary supplies furnished. $379. If the admiralty has cognizance of the principal thing, it has also of the incident. Thus, goods taken by pirates and sold on land, may be recovered from the vendee by suit in admiralty. 11 Kent's Commentaries, 343. 31 Kent's Comm. 349. 22 Gallison, 398. 5 Idem. The proceedings in admiralty are according to the course of the civil law, and are brief and simple.' §380. "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact." This clause was, at first, supposed to confer the power of reviewing the verdicts of juries on matters of fact. This was not, however, the case. "The real object of the provision was to retain the power of reviewing the fact as well as the law in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." This subject is now settled conclusively by an amendment to the Constitution, in the following words: "In'suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law.” This at once prohibits the re-examination of facts already tried by jury in any other manner. The only modes known to the Common Law to reexamine such facts are-1st. The granting a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, and 2d, by a Writ of Error, for an error in law, by some appellate court; neither of these includes the power of re-examining facts already tried by another court. § 381. The appellate jurisdiction is to be with such exceptions and regulations as "the Congress shall prescribe." But here a question is asked, whether the jurisdiction attaches to the Supreme Court in its own nature, to be modified by Congress, or whether an act of Congress is necessary to confer that jurisdiction? If Congress have the power they may repeal it, and thus destroy the whole efficacy of the court. It was formerly decided by the Supreme Court, that if Congress provided no rule to regulate their proceedings, they 11 Kent's Comm. 354; 3 Story's Comm. 629. 23 Peters's Rep. 446. 33 Story's Comm. 648. |