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 forfeitures incurred under those laws. (a) 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 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."

(x) The jurisdiction of the district courts over penalties will not be treated as transferred to the circuit courts by uncertain language in a statute, as in the contract labor law (23 St. at L. 332, § 3) enabling the penalty to be sued for in the circuit courts. Lees v. United States, 150 U. S. 476; see United States v. Mooney, 11 Fed. Rep. 476. As such penalties are of a quasi-criminal nature, this jurisdiction is not limited by the act of 1888, giving the circuit courts original cognizance of all suits of a civil nature," exceeding $2,000 in amount. United States v. Whitcomb M. B. Co., 45 Fed. Rep. 89; post, p. 331, n. Diverse citizenship is not a ground of jurisdiction in the district courts. In re Burrus, 136 U. S. 586. A suit for the full amount of a penal bond exceeding $2,000, when at the trial it appears that less than $2,000 is claimed, must be dismissed. Cabot v. McMaster, 61 Fed. Rep. 129; see State v. Hill, 60

id. 1005. Under the Rev. Stats. § 563, the district court has jurisdiction of a setoff by the United States when sued by a district attorney to recover fees. Tuthill v. United States, 38 Fed. Rep. 538. The district courts, as well as the Supreme and circuit courts, have, under Rev. Stats. § 716, power to issue the writ of ne exeat. Lewis v. Shainwald, 48 Fed. Rep. 492. As to their jurisdiction in suits relating to national banks, see Stephens v. Bernays, 41 Fed. Rep. 401; 44 id. 642; 119 Mo. 143; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 42 id. 801. In general a national bank can sue in the Federal courts to recover upon a note only where diverse citizenship is shown. Danahy v. Denison Nat. Bank, 64 Fed. Rep. 148.

By § 4 of the judiciary act of Mar. 3, 1891, the appellate jurisdiction of the old circuit courts over the district courts was abolished.

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

(c) Act of Congress of September 24, 1789, c. 20, sec. 9; [ante, 45, n. 1.] By act of Congress of Aug 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.

By the act of Congress of August 23,

(e) Act of February 21, 1793, c. 11, sec. 10. 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 criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce the rights secured to them by that act, in the state courts; and in all cases where the United States laws fail to furnish remedies and punish offences against law, the common law, as modified by the constitution and statutes of the state so far as not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, is to govern in the United States courts. Act of April 9, 1866, 14 U. S. St. at L. 27, c. 31, § 3; ante, 302, n. 1, 303, n. 1.

They have, in like manner, exclusively of state courts, cognizance of all crimes

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

Supreme Court, and to continue until the next circuit * 305 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.
(c) Act of February 19, 1831, [c. 28.]

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, ກ. 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 cer

tificate 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. Hudson 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. [See 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; Ex parte Tom Tong, 2 Supr. Ct. Rep. 871; 108 U. S. 556. — B.]

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) 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 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,

(d) Act of April 29, 1802, [c. 31,] sec. 5, 6.
(e) Act of March 3, 1805, [c. 38,] sec. 1.
(f) Act of December 18, 1812, sec. 1.

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 hypoth esis, 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 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. [The right to a review in such case is irrespective of the amount in controversy, ever since the act of 1875 (18 St. at L. 315). Dow v. Johnson, 100 U. S. 158. B.]

2 Ante, 299, n. 1.

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 (x) 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

(x) A commissioner of a circuit court is an officer of the court, authorized by law, and entitled to such fees, when certi

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 purpose. United States v. Stowell, 2 Curtis, 153.

The action of a commissioner in committing a prisoner may be revised on

fied by the court as correct, as are set forth in United States v. Allred, 155 U. S. 591.