to copyrights and patent-rights growing out of inventions and discoveries, and to protect such rights by injunction. (b) The (b) Acts of April 17, 1800, c. 25, sec. 3; of February 15, 1819, sec. 1, and of July 4, 1836, c. 357, sec. 17; act of March 2, 1833, entitled further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, [c. 57,] sec. 2. right to remove the cause to the proper district or circuit court. Act of April 9, 1866, c. 31, § 3, 14 U. S. St. at L. 27; McKee v. Rains, 10 Wall. 22; post, 304, n. 1. x1 So an alien defendant, or a citizen of another state sued by a citizen of the state in which suit is brought, if the mat ter in dispute exceeds $500, and the suit as to such defendant is to restrain or enjoin him, or can be finally determined without the presence of other defendants in the cause, and if a citizen of the state in which suit is brought is also a defendant, may remove the cause as against himself into the next circuit court at any time before final hearing. Act of July 27, 1866, c. 288, 14 U. S. St. at L. 306; Bixby v. Couse, 8 Blatchf. 73; Huidekoper, 103 U. S. 485; Stone v. Sargent, 129 Mass. 503. As to removal of criminal proceedings on the ground of a denial of civil rights, see Bush v. Kentucky, 107 U. S. 110; Neal v. Delaware, 103 id. 370; Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 id. 303; Virginia v. Rives, ib. 313. Comp. State v. Smalls, 11 S. C. 262. As to the time within which a petition to remove must be filed under acts of 1866 and 1867, see Jifkins v. Sweetzer, 102 U. S. 177; under act of 1875, Hewitt v. Phelps, 105 id. 393. x1 Held constitutional in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. It was held in this case that a state law to the effect that no colored persons should be on a jury was a denial of equal rights. In Virginia v. Rives, ib. 313, it was held that the mere fact that the officer of the state whose duty it was to select jurors refused to select any colored persons, was Allin v. Robinson, 1 Dillon, 119. Amended so that a controversy for more than $500 between a citizen of the state in which suit is brought and a citizen of another state, may be removed by the latter, whether plaintiff or defendant, if he will file in the state court an affidavit that from prejudice or local influence he will not be able to obtain justice there, and give security for appearance, &c. Act of March 2, 1867, c. 196, 14 U. S. St. at L. 558. This is discussed and held constitutional in Johnson v. Monell, 1 Woolw. 390; Railway Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270, 287. See, generally, Sneed v. Brownlow, 4 Coldw. 253; Washington, Al. & G. R. R. v. Alexandria & Wn. R. R., 19 Gratt. 592, 602; Sands v. Smith, 1 Dil not a ground for removal. As to the proper remedy in such case, see Ex parte Virginia, ib. 339. When a removal is claimed on the ground of local prejudice, it must appear that all the parties on one side are citizens of different states from any on the other. Myers v. Swann, 107 U. S. 546. An alien has no right to a removal either under the separate controversy or under the local prejudice clause of the act of 1875. King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395. A collusive assignment to give jurisdiction is void, and gives no jurisdiction. Hayden v. Manning, 106 U. S. 586. In Gaines v. Fuentes, 92 U. S. 10, it was held (two judges dissenting) that the right of removal under the act of March 2, 1867, was not confined to cases where the Circuit Court might have taken original jurisdiction as it had been prior to that act. jurisdiction in cases of copyrights applies, without regard to the character of the parties, or the amount in controversy; and with respect to the jurisdiction of the circuit courts, it may be laid down as the settled doctrine, that they are courts of limited, though not of inferior, jurisdiction; and it is necessary, therefore, that there should appear upon the record of a circuit court, the facts or circumstances which gave jurisdiction, either expressly or by necessary legal intendment. (c) (c) Turner v. The Bank of North America, 4 Dallas, 11; M'Cormick v. Sullivant, 10 Wheaton, 192. See also post, 314. The circuit courts are not authorized to issue writs of mandamus, except when necessary for the exercise of their acknowledged jurisdiction. M'Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. It will therefore lie to a district court refusing to proceed to judgment in a case subject to the appellate jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Smith v. Jackson, 1 Paine, 453. It is a general principle of the common law, that where a limited authority is given, if the party to whom it is given extends his jurisdiction to objects not within it, his warrant will be no protection to the officers who act under it. Morrell v. Martin, 3 Mann. & Gr. 581. lon, 290; Case v. Douglas, ib. 299; Beecher v. Gillett, ib. 308; Akerly v. Vilas, 1 Abb. U. S. 284. So, any suit or prosecution, civil or criminal, against an internal revenue officer or person acting under him, for acts done under color of his office, or against any person holding property by title derived from any such officer, concerning such property and affecting the validity of the internal revenue acts, may be removed to the Circuit Court at any time before trial. Act of July 13, 1866, c. 184, § 67, 14 U. S. St. at L. 171. See Commonwealth v. Casey, 12 Allen, 214; Benchley v. Gilbert, 8 Blatchf. 147.x2 So any suit at law or in equity against any corporation other than a banking corporation, organized under a law of the United States, or against a member thereof, as such member, may be removed to the proper circuit or district court by a sworn petition stating that they have a defence under the Constitu 2 This provision was elaborately considered and held constitutional in Tennes tion, or any treaty, or law, of the United States. Act of July 27, 1868, c. 255, § 2, 15 U. S. St. at L. 227; Fisk v. Union Pacific R. R., 6 Blatchf. 362; 8 id. 243. The only question for a state court to determine when an application is made to remove a cause to the Circuit Court is whether the applicant has brought himself within the act of Congress. If it decides that he has, the removal follows as of right, and further proceedings in the state court are void. Compare Rosenfield v. Adams Exp. Co., 21 La. Ann. 233; Williams v. Adkins, 6 Coldw. 615; Akerly v. Vilas, 24 Wisc. 165; 1 Abb. U. S. 284; Stevens v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 41 N. Y. 149; Fisk v. Union Pacific R. R., 8 Blatchf. 243; 6 id. 362; Hatch v. Chicago, R. I., & P. R. R., 6 id. 105. As to removal of suits from state courts to the Supreme Court, see 300 and note. As to removal of suits from one circuit court to another, &c., ante, 301, n. 2, end. see v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Davis r. South Carolina, 107 id. 597. 5. Jurisdiction of the District Courts. The district as well as the circuit courts are derived from the power granted to Congress by the Constitution, of constituting tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. (d) The United States are at present divided into thirty-five districts, which generally consist of an entire state; but in New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, there are more districts than one. A court is established in each district, with some exceptions, consisting of one judge, who holds annually, in most of them, four stated terms, and in some of them only three, or two, or one; and he holds, also, special courts in his discretion. There are at present only twenty-nine district judges; and it seems to be practically settled, since the act of 1801, that Congress may, in their discretion, abolish the inferior courts, and create new ones under a different organization. The district courts have, exclusive of the state courts, *304 *cognizance of all lesser crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and committed within their respective districts, or upon the high seas, and which are punishable by fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or when corporal punishment, not exceeding thirty stripes, is to be inflicted. (a) They have also exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under imposts, navigation, or trade laws of the United States, where the seizures are made upon the high seas, or on waters within their districts navigable from the sea with vessels of ten or more tons burden; (b) and also of all other seizures made under the laws of the United States; and also of all suits for penalties and (d) Art. 1, sec. 8. (a) By the act of Congress of August 23, 1842, c. 188, and of August 8, 1846, c. 98, the district courts were declared to have concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit courts, of all crimes and offences against the United States, the punishment of which is not capital. (b) The exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is understood to be exclusive as between the district and circuit courts, and that the jurisdiction may be concurrent with courts of common law, in cases in which a common-law remedy may be adequate and proper, inasmuch as the Judiciary Act of 1789, sec. 9, when on this very point, saves to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common-law remedy, where the common law is competent to give it." forfeitures incurred under those laws. They have also cognizance, concurrent with the circuit courts and the state courts, of causes where an alien sues for a tort committed in violation of the law of nations, or of a treaty of the United States; and of all suits at common law, in which the United States are plaintiffs, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to two hundred dollars. They have jurisdiction, likewise, exclusive of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls or viceconsuls, except for offences above the magnitude which has been mentioned. (c) They have also cognizance of complaints by whomsoever instituted, in cases of captures made within the waters of the United States, or within a marine league of its coast; (d) and to repeal patents unduly obtained. (e) 1 1 (c) Act of Congress of September 24, 1789, c. 20, sec. 9; [ante, 45, n. 1.] By act of Congress of August 8, 1846, c. 105, the district and circuit courts, and the commissioners to take affidavits, &c., have jurisdiction, as justices of the peace, against offenders against the United States, and, on the application of foreign consuls and commercial agents, to enforce their awards and decrees by arrest and imprisonment, &c. (d) Act of April 20, 1818, [c. 88,] sec. 7. (e) Act of February 21, 1793, c. 11, sec. 10. By the act of Congress of August 23, 1842, c. 188, the district courts, as courts of admiralty, and the circuit courts, as courts of equity, are to be deemed always open for the purpose of filing pleadings and issuing process, and for interlocutory motions and orders. 1 Jurisdiction of District Courts. See, as to their admiralty jurisdiction, post, 369, n. 1, where the interpretation of the saving clause in note (b) by the later decisions is also given. The district courts have cognizance, concurrent with the circuit and state courts, of all suits at common law, when the United States or any officer thereof, under the authority of any act of Congress, shall sue, although the matter in dispute is less than $100. Act of March 3, 1815, § 4. So they have jurisdiction, concurrent as above, of suits and proceedings against national banks. Act of June 3, 1864, § 57. So they have original jurisdiction in all matters and proceedings in bankruptcy. Act of March 2, 1867, § 1. [See Claflin v. Houseman, 93 U. S. 130.] In the way of criminal jurisdiction, it has been enacted that the District Court may, on the report of the district attorney, try at special session in a summary way, unless, at the time for pleading, the accused shall demand a jury, any master, officer, or mariner of any vessel belonging, in whole or in part, to citizens of the United States, complained of for the commission of any offence, not capital or otherwise infamous, against any United States law for the protection of persons or property engaged in commerce or navigation. Act of June 11, 1864, c. 121, § 2, 13 U. S. St. at L. 124; post, 363, n. 1. The district courts have also, exclusively of the state courts, cognizance of all crimes and offences against the Civil Rights Bill, and also, concurrently with the circuit courts, of all causes, civil and The judges of the district courts have, also, in cases where the party has not had a reasonable time to apply to the Circuit Court, as full power to grant writs of injunction to operate within their respective districts, as is exercised by the judges of the *305 Supreme Court, and to continue until the next circuit court. (a) They may also grant injunctions, in particular cases, under the act for the better organization of the treasury department. (b) In addition to these general powers vested in the district courts, they have, in those cases where the districts are so situated as not to permit conveniently the presence of a judge of the Supreme Court, the powers of a circuit court superadded to their ordinary powers of a district court. (c) To guard against the inconvenience of a difference of opinion between the circuit judge and the district judge, when holding together a circuit court, it is provided by law, that in all cases of appeal or error, from the district to the circuit court, judgment is to be rendered in conformity to the opinion of the judge of the Supreme Court presiding in such circuit court. And in all other cases of a disagreement of opinion between the circuit and district judges, the point may be certified into the Supreme Court for its decision; but in no case shall im (a) Act of February 13, 1807, [c. 13,] sec. 1. (b) Act of Congress of May 15, 1820, [c. 107,] sec. 4 and 5. criminal, affecting persons who are denied They have, in like manner, exclusively of state courts, cognizance of all crimes and offences against the act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, 16 U. S. St. at L. 140, and the concurrent jurisdiction under the same act and under the Ku-Klux Act, which has already been mentioned, ante, 302, n. 1. See, as to the summary trial of officers and mariners for offences not capital or otherwise infamous, act of June 11, 1864, c. 121, 13 U. S. St. at L. 124; post, 363, n. 1. 1 Certificate of Division. The associate justice of the Supreme Court, and the resident circuit judge, holding court under the act of April 10, 1869, ante, 301, n. 2, can certify a division of opinion. Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 11 Wall. 1. The certificate of division brings nothing before the court but the points certified, Ward v. Chamberlain, 2 Black, 430; which must be points of law, Silliman v. Hud |