Original process of the circuit and district courts does not run outside of the district in which the suit is brought.63 Where the jurisdiction depends on diverse citizenship, suit can be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or defendant.64 An assignee of a chose in action cannot sue on the ground of diverse citizenship where his assignor could not sue, save in actions upon foreign bills of exchange and in actions against corporations.65 In causes of criminal cognizance, the original jurisdiction of the federal courts is limited in two respects. In the first place, those courts cannot take cognizance of an act alleged to be criminal, which has not been declared to be such by an act of Congress.66 In the second place, Congress cannot, under the Constitution, declare an act to be criminal, unless, as Field, J., said,67 that act has "some relation to the execution of a power of Congress, or to some matter within the jurisdiction of the United States." Thus, a murder committed on board a vessel of the navy of the United States while at anchor in navigable waters within the jurisdiction of a state is not cognizable in a court of the United States; 68 Congress cannot make it a misdemeanor to sell within the territory of a state illumi nating oil inflammable at less than a specified temperature; 69 while Congress may legislate with regard to bank ruptcy, and may prohibit and declare to be punishable the commission of a fraud in contemplation of bankruptcy, it cannot constitute the obtaining of goods on false pretences es Ibid., sec. 1. 64 Ibid., sec. 1. 65 Ibid., sec. 1. "U. S. v. Hudson, 7 Cr. 32; U. S. v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415; Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110; Jones v. U. S., 137 id. 202, 211. But see Tennessee v. Davis, 100 id. 257. 67 U. S. v. Fox., 95 U. S. 670. 6 U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336. "U. S. v. Dewitt, 9 Wall. 41. with intent to defraud, but not in contemplation of bankruptcy, to be an offense against the United States; 70 and Congress cannot by statute provide for the punishment of state election officers for wrongully refusing to receive the vote of a qualified voter at an election, when that refusal is not based upon a discrimination against the voter on account of his race, colour, or previous condition of servitude.71 Exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction. 72 99. It is a principle of constitutional construction, as stated by Marshall, C. J., in Sturges v. Crowninshield," that "whenever the terms in which a power is granted to Congress, or the nature of the power, require that it should be exercised exclusively by Congress, the subject is as completely taken from the state legislatures as if they had been expressly forbidden to act on it." 78 In conformity with this principle, it has been decided in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, and in The Moses Taylor,75 that Congress has power to divest the courts of the states of jurisdiction over all subject-matters which are included within the constitutional grant of judicial power to the United States, or whose determination by the judicial power of the United States is necessary to the exercise by Congress of its constitutional power of legislation, and where Congress has expressed its will that, as to any particular subject-matter of federal cognizance the jurisdic 70 U. S. v. Fox, 95 U. S. 670. "U. S. v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; U. S. v. Cruikshank, ibid. 542. 24 Wheat. 193. "See also Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; Gilman v. Philadelphia, 3 Wall. 713, 730. 71 Wheat. 304. 74 Wall. 411. See also Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 314, 315, 325; Slocum v. Mayberry, 2 id. 9; Gelston v. Hoyt, 3 id. 246; Waring v. Clarke, 5 How. 451; G., C. & S. F. Ry. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98. Sed. cf. Story's Commentaries, sec. 1672, note 4. tion of the courts of the United States shall be exclusive, the courts of the states cannot take cognizance of such subject-matter.76 Of course, the Constitution, having granted the power, and not having commanded Congress to exercise it, it is for Congress to determine when and to what extent it will exercise it. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States within the limits imposed by the Constitution is either exclusive of, or concurrent with, that of the courts of the states, as Congress may, from time to time, determine." As the law now is, the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is exclusive of that of the states in cases of crimes and offenses cognizable under the authority of the United States; in suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States; in civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases the right of a common-law remedy, where the comon law is competent to give it; in seizures under the laws of the United States on land or on waters not within admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; in cases arising under the patent right or copyright laws of the United States; in all matters and proceedings in 7 In Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130, Bradley, J., said, the general principle is, "that, where jurisdiction may be conferred on the United States courts, it may be made exclusive where not so by the Constitution itself; but, if exclusive jurisdiction be neither express nor implied, the state courts have concurrent jurisdiction whenever, by their own constitution, they are competent to take it." In Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, Brown, J., said that the judicial power which the Constitution intended to confine to courts created by Congress "extends only to the trial and determination of 'cases' in courts of record, and Congress is still at liberty to authorize the judicial officers of the several states to exercise such power as is ordinarily given to officers of courts not of record; such, for instance, as the power to take affidavits, to arrest and commit for trial offenders against the laws of the United States, to naturalize aliens, and to perform such other duties as may be regarded as incidental to the judicial power rather than a part of the judicial power itself." "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 331, 333; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411, 429. bankruptcy; in all controversies of a civil nature, where a state is a party, except between a state and its citizens, or between a state and citizens of other states, or aliens; and in all suits or proceedings against ambassadors, or other public ministers, or their domestics, or domestic servants, or against consuls or vice-consuls.78 The courts of the United States. 100. The courts of the United States are the district courts, the circuit courts, the circuit courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court. The jurisdiction of the district and circuit courts is exclusively original; that of the circuit courts of appeal exclusively appellate; and that of the Supreme Court both original and appellate. The United States is divided into judicial districts, in some cases one state constituting a judicial district, and, in other cases, a state including within its territory two or more districts. There are also a court of claims, a court of private land claims, and in certain foreign countries, consular courts, and in the territories and in Alaska, Hawaii, Porto Rico, and the Philippines, territorial courts, whose jurisdiction and procedure are foreign to the subject of this book. There is for each district court one judge, who is required by statute to reside within his district. There are nine circuit courts, the United States being divided into nine circuits, each circuit including the districts in three, or more, states. For each circuit there are two, or more, circuit judges, and in addition thereto, the justice of the Supreme Court allotted to that circuit. The circuit courts have no longer any appellate jurisdiction." In each circuit there is a circuit court of appeals, constituted at any one time of three judges, of whom two are 7 Rev. Stat., sec. 711. "Act 3d Mar., 1891, c. 517, sec. 4, 26 Stat. 826. a quorum.80 The judges therein are the Supreme Court justice assigned to the circuit, the circuit judges, and the several district judges thereof. The Supreme Court now consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices, any six of whom constitute a quorum; but Congress may increase, or decrease, the number of justices, or change the quorum. Original jurisdiction. 101. The original jurisdiction of the courts of the United States is exercised in some cases by the Supreme Court, and, in other cases, by the inferior courts. As Johnson, J., said in United States v. Hudson,81 "Only the Supreme Court possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it. All other courts created by the general government possess no jurisdiction but what is given them by the power that creates them, and can be vested with none but what the power ceded to the general government will authorize them to confer." The original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is limited by the Constitution to "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party." Congress cannot confer upon the Supreme Court any original jurisdiction other than that so conferred by the express terms of the Constitution.82 Whether or not Congress can authorize other courts of the United States to exercise concurrent original jurisdiction in the cases, original jurisdiction over which is vested by the Constitution in the Supreme Court, was for a long time an unsettled question. In U. S. v. Ortega,s 80 Act 3d Mar., 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 826. 83 |