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 prisonment be allowed, or punishment be inflicted, where the judges of the Circuit Court are divided in opinion upon the question. (d) The superior courts of the several territories of the United States, in which no district court is established, have the enlarged jurisdiction of circuit courts, subject to revision by writ of error and appeal to the Supreme Court. (e)2 The district and territorial judges of the United States are required to reside within their respective jurisdictions; and no federal judge can act as counsel, or be engaged in the practice of the law. (f) 306 * 6. Jurisdiction of Auxiliary State Courts. - The state courts are, in some cases, invested, by acts of Congress, with the cognizance of cases arising under the laws of the United States. By the acts of March 8, 1806, and April 21, 1808, and March 3, 1815, the county courts within or adjoining the revenue districts in certain parts of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, were authorized to take cognizance of (d) Act of April 29, 1802, [c. 31,] sec. 5, 6. son R. Bridge, 1 Black, 582; Wilson v. Barnum, 8 How. 258; Dennistoun v. Stewart, 18 How. 565; Brobst v. Brobst, 4 Wall. 2; and distinctly stated, Sadler v. Hoover, 7 How. 646. Several questions may be decided at the same time. United States v. Chicago, 7 How. 185. But the division of opinion must be actual, and if certified pro forma only, or if the question rests on a hypothesis, it is the practice of the Supreme Court to decline to answer. Nesmith v. Sheldon, 6 How. 41; Webster v. Cooper, 10 How. 54; Pelham v. Rose, 9 Wall. 103. A division on a motion addressed to the discretion of the court does not 21 Weeth v. N. E. Mort. Co., 106 U.S. 605. The request to certify need not be expressly stated, if it can be fairly inferred from the record. United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629. As to the difference of procedure in civil and criminal cases, see Rev. St. U. S. §§ 650-652; VOL. I.-23 present a point which can be certified, although touching its jurisdiction. United States v. Avery, 13 Wall. 251; United States v. Rosenburgh, 7 id. 580. By the act of June 1, 1872, in case of a division of opinion, that of the presiding justice is to prevail for the time being; but after final judgment, decree, or order, it is the judges' duty to certify the difference as to any question which might have been reviewed on certificate under the act of 1802, and then either party may remove the final judgment, decree, or order to the Supreme Court, on writ of error or appeal, subject, &c. x2 2 Ante, 299, n. 1. Ex parte Tom Tong, 2 Supr. Ct. Rep. 871; 108 U. S. 556. 2 The right to a review in such case is irrespective of the amount in controversy, even since the act of 1875 (18 St. at L. 315). Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158. [353] prosecutions for fines, penalties, and forfeitures, arising under the revenue laws of the United States; and the State or county courts adjoining any collection district, in relation to taxes or internal duties which may, at any time hereafter, be assessed, have cognizance of all suits for taxes, duties, fines, penalties, and forfeitures, arising thereon. (a) In attending to this general survey of the organization of the judiciary establishment of the United States, it will be perceived that all the great features of the system are to be found in the act of Congress which was passed in September, 1789, at the first session of the first Congress under the present Constitution. That act has stood the test of experience since that time, with very little alteration or improvement; and this fact is no small evidence of the wisdom of the plan, and of its adaptation to the interest and convenience of the country. The act of 1789 was the work of much profound reflection, and of great legal knowledge; and the system then formed and reduced to practice has been so successful and so beneficial in its operation, that the administration of justice in the federal courts has been constantly rising in influence and reputation. The principal officers of the courts are attorneys and counsellors, clerks and marshals.1 (a) Vide infra, 400-405. [As to next paragraph, see 300, n. 1.] 1 To these may be added commissioners and registers in bankruptcy. Commissioners were first authorized to be appointed by the Circuit Court for the purpose of taking bail and affidavits in civil cases, by the act of Feb. 10, 1812. See act of March 1, 1817; Admiralty Rules, 5, 35. By the latter act they could also take depositions de bene esse in certain cases, but could not issue a habeas corpus ad testificandum. Ex parte Barnes, 1 Sprague, 133. Since these acts their powers have been considerably enlarged. By the act of Aug. 23, 1842, they were to exercise all the powers that any justice of the peace or other magistrate of any of the United States might then exercise in respect to offenders for any crime or offence against the United States under the Judiciary Act, § 33, and to issue process for seamen's wages, as authorized by act of July 20, 1790, § 6. By the act of Aug. 8, 1846, they were to enforce the decisions of foreign consuls in certain cases. When authorized to do so by the United States courts, they may, upon complaint under oath, issue warrants for the apprehension of persons whose extradition is sought under any treaty or convention of the United States, and hear and report upon the evidence to the Secretary of State. Act of Aug. 12, 1848, § 1. The commissioners should be specially designated for the purpose. In re Henrich, 5 Blatchf. 414. And special commissioners may be appointed for the 7. Of Attorneys and Counsel. Attorneys and counsel are regularly admitted by the several courts, to assist the parties in their pleadings, and in the conduct of their causes in those cases in which the parties do not appear and manage their own causes personally, as they are expressly permitted to * 307 do. (a) This privilege conceded to parties, though reasonable in itself, is, upon the whole, useless; and the necessity of a distinct profession, to render the application of the law easy and certain to every individual case, has always been felt in every country under the government of written law. As property becomes secure, and the arts are cultivated, and commerce flourishes, and when wealth and luxury are introduced, and create the infinite distinctions and refinements of civilized life, the law will gradually and necessarily assume the character of a complicated science, requiring for its application the skill and learning of a particular profession. After the publication of the twelve tables, suitors at Rome were obliged to resort to the assistance of their patrons, and judicial proceedings became the study and (a) Act of Congress of September 24, 1789, sec. 35. purpose. United States v. Stowell, 2 United States. Act of April 9, 1866, c. Curtis, 153. 31, § 4, 14 U. S. St. at L. 28. The action of a commissioner in committing a prisoner may be revised on habeas corpus in conjunction with a certiorari. In re Henrich, 5 Blatchf. 414; In re Martin, ib. 303; ante, 301, n. 1. Their number was enlarged, and superior courts of territories empowered to appoint them, by act of Sept. 18, 1850. See act of April 9, 1866, § 4. By the act of Feb. 24, 1855, they were empowered to issue warrants for the arrest of deserters from foreign vessels in certain cases. By the act of May 15, 1862, they were given powers to take surety of the peace and for good behavior, like to those of other officers, under the act of July 16, 1798. They are to institute proceedings against persons violating the Civil Rights Bill, and have the same duties with regard to offences under that act as they are authorized to exercise with regard to other offences against the laws of the They are to exercise all the powers that any justice of the peace may exercise under the act of July 20, 1790, § 7. Act of July 28, 1866, c. 309, 14 U. S. St. at L. 343. They may take proof of debts in bankruptcy in all cases, subject to the revision of such proofs by the register and by the court. Act of July 27, 1868, c. 258, § 3, 15 U. S. St. at L. 228. Their numbers are increased, and they are to institute proceedings against persons violating the act of May 31, 1870, c. 114, and have the same duties with regard to offences under that act, as they are authorized to exercise with regard to other offences against the laws of the United States. 16 U. S. St. at L. 142, § 9. Provision for the appointment of registers in bankruptcy is made, and their duties are defined in the act of March 2, 1867, §§ 3-7, and act of July 27, 1868, § 3. |