صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

tion only in minor crimes, it was a question whether the courts had any jurisdiction over cases of murder, &c. In the case of the United States against M'Gill,1 it was decided they had not. The same was decided in United States vs. Bevans. It is now settled, that the federal courts, as courts of admiralty, are to exercise such criminal jurisdiction as is conferred upon them expressly by acts of Congress, and they are not to exercise any other.3

This limitation, however, does not extend to private prosecutions in the District Court to recover damages for a marine tort.

§ 374. 3. As to the division between the jurisdiction of the Admiralty and the courts of Common Law.

On the sea-shore, the jurisdiction of the admiralty is limited to low-water mark, and between that and highwater mark, where the sea ebbs and flows, the common law and admiralty have a divided jurisdiction.

§ 375. In the Circuit Court of the United States it has also been decided, that the admiralty jurisdiction extends to all maritime contracts, torts, injuries, and offences on the high seas, and in ports and havens, as far as the ebb and flow of the tide.5

It has been asked what cases come within the meaning of admiralty, and what of common law jurisdiction? It is now settled that all seizures under laws of import, navigation, and trade, if made upon tide-waters navigable from sea, are civil cases of admiralty jurisdiction.

§ 376. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the District Courts is exclusive. The Constitution extends the judicial authority of the United States to all cases of admiralty jurisdiction, and the act of Congress enacts, that the District Courts shall have exclusive ori

14 Dallas, 426.

mentaries, 341.
81 Kent's Comm. 349.

25 Wheaton, 76. 4 Idem. 343.

31 Kent's Com52 Gallison, 398.

M

ginal cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

4. Jurisdiction of the Instance Courts.

1

§ 377. The Instance Courts take cognizance of crimes committed, and things done, and contracts not under seal, made on the bosom of the sea. The cause must arise wholly upon the sea to be within the admiralty jurisdiction. If the act be done partly on land and partly on water, the Common Law has the preference.

§ 378. The admiralty has cognizance of maritime hypothecations of vessels and goods in foreign ports, for repairs done, or necessary supplies furnished.

§ 379. If the admiralty has cognizance of the principal thing, it has also of the incident. Thus, goods taken by pirates and sold on land, may be recovered from the vendee by suit in admiralty.

The proceedings in admiralty are according to the course of the civil law, and are brief and simple.3

§ 380. "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact." This clause was, at first, supposed to confer the power of reviewing the verdicts of juries on matters of fact. This was not, however, the case. "The real object of the provision was to retain the power of reviewing the fact as well as the law in cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction." This subject is now settled conclusively by an amendment to the Constitution, in the following words:

" In suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ; and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law."

This at once prohibits the re-examination of facts already tried by jury in any other manner.

11 Kent's Comm. 352. 2 Idem. Comm. 629.

43 Peters's Rep. 446.

3 Idem. 354; 3 Story's

The only modes known to the Common Law to reexamine such facts are-1st. The granting a new trial by the court where the issue was tried, and 2d, by a Writ of Error, for an error in law, by some appellate court; neither of these includes the power of re-examining facts already tried by another court.

§ 381. The appellate jurisdiction is to be with such exceptions and regulations as "the Congress shall prescribe." But here a question is asked, whether the jurisdiction attaches to the Supreme Court in its own nature, to be modified by Congress, or whether an act of Congress is necessary to confer that jurisdiction? If Congress have the power they may repeal it, and thus destroy the whole efficacy1 of the court. It was formerly decided by the Supreme Court, that if Congress provided no rule to regulate their proceedings, they could exercise no jurisdiction. That decision has, however, been since overruled, and it is asserted by the Supreme Court, that without any limitation of powers by an act of Congress, it must possess all the jurisdiction which the Constitution assigns it. The appellate powers of the Supreme Court are given by the Constitution, and not by the judicial act. But they are regulated and limited by that act.

§ 382. There are certain incidental powers which are attached to all courts without the necessity of an en

actment.

The functions of the judges are strictly judicial. They cannot be called upon to advise the President, or to give extra-judicial opinions, or to act as commissioners, or other like matters.

Thus also the courts have power over their own officers, and the power to protect them and their members from being disturbed in the exercise of their functions. All courts have the power to attach for contempts, and by means of this they can protect themselves.

13 Story's Comm, 648.

6 Cranch, 307, 313.

§ 383. 3d clause. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed. But when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

§ 384. In connexion with this must be taken the amendments on the same subject, as follows:

Amendment 5th. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment, or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject, for the same offence, to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

§ 385. Amendment 6th. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed;

§ 386. The right to a trial by jury is of very ancient date. It was firmly established, however, in the Magna Charta, granted at Runneymede.1 In that instrument it is declared, that no freeman shall be injured in person or property except by the judgment of his peers, or the law of the land. From that time to this it has descended unimpaired through the governments of England and this country. It is esteemed, and correctly, the most precious right of freemen; for it enables them to appeal from the arbitrary judgments of either governments or individuals, to the disinterested verdicts of their equals. The term peers means equals,

13 Blackstone, 350.

and a judgment by his peers is one by his equals. The verdict, then, is given by those who are not only neighbours, but taken from the same rank and circumstances of life, and influenced by all the sentiments of justice or humanity which may be supposed to actuate persons placed in similar situations, and liable to the same contingencies.

§ 387. The trial of all crimes must also be in the state where it is committed. This is to avoid the difficulty, expense, and oppression which might happen from being carried into other states, and before foreign tribunals.1

Before a person can be tried for a crime, he must first be charged by a Grand Jury with the offence. This charge is in the form of a presentment, or indictment. A Grand Jury is a number of men, not less than twelve, nor more than twenty-three, of whom twelve must agree in the charge, selected in the manner of other juries, from the body of the people within the county where they are summoned. They are sworn to make diligent inquiry of all offences committed against the authority of the government and the peace of the state within the body of their county. In the United States Courts they are sworn to inquire and present all offences against the national government, and within its jurisdiction. When the grand jury are assembled, the proper officer, commonly the District Attorney for the state, lays before them all the offences of which he has any knowledge, and the evidence by which the charges against the prisoners are supported. They examine this carefully, and, if they find the testimony probable, and sufficient to induce a rational belief in the charges, they find what is called a bill, or an indictment, and indorse on it A true bill. This bill or indictment is a formal charge of the offence against the prisoner, usually drawn up by the

13 Story's Comm. 655.

24 Blackstone, 302.

M2

« السابقةمتابعة »