having such cognizance, might punish by fine and imprisonment where no punishment was specially provided by statute; that the admiralty was a court of extensive criminal as well as civil jurisdiction; and that offences of admiralty were exclusively cognizable by the United States, and punishable by fine and imprisonment, where no other punishment was specially prescribed. The district judge dissenting, the case came before the Supreme Court of the United States; and it is evident from the report,' that a strong desire existed in the minds of the judges to hear the whole question of the extent of jurisdiction reargued. The attorney-general, however, declined to do so, being unwilling to attempt to shake the opinion in United States v. Hudson and Goodwin; by the authority of that case the court felt themselves bound, and so certified to the Circuit Court.3 Rulings do not shut out common law as a standard of interpretation. § 255. But even assuming, as was said on another occasion, that it is now finally established that the common law, as a source of jurisdiction, is not recognized in the federal courts, this does not exclude the operation of the common law, as a rule for the exercise of a jurisdiction previously given. That the common law is necessarily thus appealed to will hereafter appear in the chapters discussing offences against the United States; and it will be seen that there is not one of these offences whose character is not, according to the construction given by the federal courts, determined by a resort to the common law.5 1 1 Wheat. 415, 1816. 2 7 Cranch, 32, 1813. 3 Chancellor Kent does not seem to think that the case of U. S. v. Coolidge should be governed by the same principle as those of U. S. v. Hudson, and U. S. v. Worrall-the one a libel and the other an attempt to bribe a commissioner of the revenue-the two latter being decided on the ground that the Constitution had given to the courts no jurisdiction in such cases; whereas the case of Coolidge was one of admiralty, over which the federal courts seem to have a general and exclusive jurisdiction. Kent's Com. vol. i. p. 338. As following U. S. v. Coolidge, and denying jurisdiction, see U. S. v. Maurice, 2 Brock, 96, 1823; U. S. v. Scott, 4 Biss. 29, 1865; U. S. v. Babcock, 4 McL., 113, 1846; U. S. v. Taylor, 1 Hughes, 514, 1873. Hence the United States courts have no jurisdiction to try attempts to bribe revenue officers to burn distilleries. U. S. v. Gibson, 47 Fed. Rep. 833, 1891. To same effect, see argument of Clifford, J., in U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 564, 1875; infra, ¿ 256. But otherwise as to offences on high seas and places within exclusive jurisdiction. U. S. v. Shepherd, 1 Hughes, 520, 1873. 4 Wharton State Tr. 87. 5 See particularly as to piracy, infra, 1860, and see vindication of position in the text in Whart. Com. Am. Law, 12, 200, 452. Compare, also, Mar tion of common offences. § 256. While, therefore, it is settled that the federal courts have no jurisdiction of offences not declared to be such by fed- No formal eral statute, yet, as these statutes mostly designate offences jurisdicby title, leaving their definition to the common law, it is excluthe common law that is the final arbiter as to what such sively offences are. And even this formal restriction of federal law jurisdiction to statutory offences is in some measure done away with by a statute, hereafter to be noticed more fully, by which conspiracies against the United States are made indictable.1 Other common law offences against the United States are still cognizable in State courts, when committed within State limits, and where State cognizance of them is not prohibited by federal statute.2 But when common law offences against the United States are committed on the high seas, or on exclusively federal territory, they are either punishable in the federal courts, or they are not punishable at all. § 257. It remains to consider such offences as are brought within the jurisdiction of the federal courts by act of Congress. Statutory The offences thus particularly enumerated by Congress jurisdicmay be collected under five general heads; first, those federal against the law of nations; secondly, those against federal sovereignty; thirdly, offences against the persons of individuals; fourthly, offences against property; and fifthly, offences against public justice. tion of courts. § 258. (a) Under the first head, namely, offences against the law of nations, may be classed, the accepting and exercising, Includes by a citizen, a commission to serve a foreign State against offences a State at peace with the United States; fitting out and law of arming, within the limits of the United States, any vessel against nations. bury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137, 1803; course is found in U. S. v. Meyer, U. S. v. Outerbridge, 5 Saw. 620, 1868; cited Whart. Prec. 955, note. As illusCom. v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545, 1820. trations of the rejection of common This position is maintained in Dupon- law jurisdiction, see U. S. v. Babcock, ceau on Juris. 3, and in Whart. State 4 McLean, 113, 1846; Anon. 1 Wash. Tr. 89. As to practice, when the ques- C. C. 84, 1804; U. S. v. Maurice, 2 tion is open, the federal courts follow Brock. 96, 1823; U. S. v. New Bedford the courts of the State in which they Bridge, 1 Woodb. & Minot, 401, 1846; sit. See U. S. v. Shepard, 1 Abb. U. S. U. S. v. Lancaster, 2 McLean, 431, 1841; U. S. v. Barney, 5 Blatch. C. C. 294, 1866; U. S. v. Scott, 4 Biss. 29, 1865; and cases cited in ? 254. 431. Infra, ¿? 1356 a, 1785. 1 Infra, & 266; 10 Wash. Writ. by Sparks, 535; Whart. State Tr. pp. 87, 88. An instance of common law jurisdiction being accepted as a matter of 3 Rev. Stat. 1878, 5281; infra, ? 1901. for a foreign State to cruise against a State at peace with the United States; increasing or assisting, within the United States, any force of armed vessels of a foreign State at war with a State with which the United States are at peace; setting on foot within the United States, any military expedition against a State at peace with the United States; suing forth or executing any writ or process against any foreign minister, or his servants, the writs being also declared void; and violating any passport; or in any other way infracting the law of nations, by violence to an ambassador, or foreign minister, or their domestics.5 Also offences against federal Sover eignty. § 259. (6) Under the second head, namely, offences against federal sovereignty, may be classed, treason against the United States and misprision of treason; holding any treasonable correspondence with a foreign government; recruiting soldiers to serve against the United States; enlisting by a citizen within, or going out of the United States with intent to enlist in the service of any foreign State; fitting out and arming a vessel by a citizen of the United States, out of the United States, with intent to cruise against citizens of the United States;10 illegally holding office;" false personation in naturalization; offences against the elective franchise; 13 false personation of owners of stock or other claim against the United States;11 obstructing officers executing warrants under civil rights laws;15 conspiring to prevent a person holding or accepting federal office 16 injuring a person so holding office ;17 offences against Indians;18 offences on Guano Islands;1 political offences against the federal government committed by subjects abroad; perjury and forgery abroad;" and the various offences defined in the statutes relating to the post 1 Rev. Stat. 1878, 5281; infra, ? 1901. 2 Rev. Stat. 5285; infra, & 1905. 3 Rev. Stat. 5286. Ibid. 4063; infra, & 1899. 5 Rev. Stat. 4062. Ibid. 5331-8. As to subsequent statutes, see infra, i 1782 et seq. 7 Rev. Stat. 5335; infra, 1789. 8 Rev. Stat. 5337; infra, & 1786. 9 Rev. Stat. 5282. 10 Ibid. 5284. 11 Ibid. 1787. 12 Ibid. 5424; infra, 1833 et seq. 13 Rev. Stat. 5425-9, 5506, 5511-19, 5520, 5529, 5532; infra, & 1833 et seq. See, also, U. S. v. Morrissey, 32 Fed. Rep. 147, 1887. 14 Rev. Stat. U. S. 5435-8. 15 Ibid. 5516. 16 Ibid. 5518. 17 Ibid. 5518. 18 Ibid. 2128, 2146, 2150. 19 Ibid. 5576. See Jones v. U. S., 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80, 1891; Smith v. U. S., 137 U. S. 224, 1891. 20 Infra, & 274. office; to counterfeiting, to piracy, revolt, and the slave-trade.3 Under this head may be noticed conspiracies against the United States, as hereafter specified.* against in on federal § 260. (c) Under the third head, namely, offences against the persons of individuals, may be classed, subjecting any person Also of to deprivation of rights under color of law; depriving fences any person of equal protection of law; murder or man- dividuals slaughter, in any fort, dock-yard, or other place or district iron of country under the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the ships, or depriving United States; causing death on ship by explosive sub- individstances; murder, manslaughter, or rape, upon the high civil seas, or in any river, haven, basin, or other like place out rights. of the jurisdiction of the United States, etc.; offences covered by statutes protecting persons on the high seas, or arms of the sea, or rivers, or bays within the admiralty jurisdiction of the United States, and out of the jurisdiction of particular States;1o and kidnapping persons with intent to enslave."1 1 Rev. Stat. U. S. 5463 et seq. 24 Stat. at L. 364, 25 Stat. at L. 1825, and 25 Stat. at L. 496. * Ibid. 5457, 742, 26 Stat. at L. See Rev. Stat. U. S. 5413-80. 4 Infra, 1556 a. 5 Rev. Stat. U. S. 5510. • Ibid. 5519. Ibid. 5339, 26 Stat. at L. 81, 123. This jurisdiction is exclusive, unless there is a reservation to the State in the act of cession. U. S. v. Bevans, 3 Wheat. 336, 1818; U. S. v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60, 1819; U. S. v. Davis, 5 Mason, 356, 1829. See U. S. v. Barney, 5 Blatch. 294, 1866; Reynolds v. People, 1 Colo. Ter. 179, 1869; Territory v. Burgess, 8 Mont. 57, 1888; Sharon v. Hill, 24 Fed. Rep. 726, 1885; Fort Leavenworth R. R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U. S. 525, 1885. The mere reservation of the right "to serve State processes in the ceded place does not exclude federal jurisdiction. Lahser v. State, 30 Tex. App. 387, 1891; U. S. v. Davis, ut supra. But the United uals of States, by buying lands for other than 10 Rev. St. U. S. 5346 et seq.; R. S. U. S. 22 5339-40. The open waters 11 Rev. Stat. U. S. 5525. Also offences against property of federal government, or on federal soil, or on ships. § 261. (d) Under the fourth head, namely, offences against property, may be classed, embezzling or purloining any arms or other ordnance belonging to the United States, by any person having the charge or custody thereof, for purposes of gain, and to impede the service of the United States; custom-house frauds; frauds in stealing implements used in printing obligations, or papers of importance;3 burning, or aiding to burn, any dwelling-house, store, or other building, within any fort, dock-yard, or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States; setting fire to, or burning, or aiding to set fire to, or burn, any arsenal, armory, etc., of the United States, or any vessel built or building, or any materials, victuals, or other public stores; taking and carrying away, with intent to steal, the personal goods of another, from within any of the places under the sole and exclusive cognizance of the United States, or being accessary thereto; and the various forms of robbery and larceny on the high seas. against § 262. (e) Under the fifth head, namely, offences against public Also justice, may be classed, bribing any United States judge public fed- or legislator with intent to obtain any opinion, judgment, eral justice and policy. or vote, in any suit depending before him ;7 receiving such of the Great Lakes are "High Seas" within the meaning of this act, and the United States courts have jurisdiction of crimes committed on board ships belonging to United States citizens navigating their waters. U. S. v. Rodgers, 150 U. S. 249, 1894, affirming 46 Fed. Rep. 1, 1891. See, also, U. S. v. Beyer, 31 Fed. Rep. 35, 1887. An offence at sea within cannon-shot of the shore is cognizable in the federal courts. U. S. v. Grush, 5 Mason, 290, 1829; U. S. v. Holmes, 5 Wheat. 412, 1820. But a ship lying at anchor between Boston and Chelsea, off Constitution Wharf, at the distance of one-fourth or one-third of a mile from said wharf, in water of the depth of four or five fathoms at low tide, and between one-third and half a mile's distance from the navy-yard in Charlestown, is within the body of the county of Suffolk; and an offence so committed on board a merchant ship so situate, owned by a citizen or citizens of the United States, is exclu- Ibid. 5453-4. And see Com. v. Gaines, 2 Va. Cas. 172. The burden is on the government to show that the crime was committed on land which was under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States. U. S. v. Meagher, 37 Fed. Rep. 875, 1888. Larceny of whiskey from bonded warehouses is triable in State courts. The federal courts only have jurisdiction to punish for removal by owner without payment of taxes. State v. Harmon, 104 N. C. 792, 1889. 7 Rev. Stat. U. S. 5451. |