Opinion of the Court.

words actually employed, "of the district of South Carolina," were inadvertently inserted, and should be rejected altogether.

It should be noted that by section 608 Circuit Courts were established for each district in the States not therein named, the States specified being Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi and yet that by section 571 certain district courts, including that for the western district of South Carolina, retained circuit court powers.

Nevertheless, it was held by Chief Justice Waite, sitting with Judge Bond in the Circuit Court in 1877: "As to the question of the jurisdiction of this court throughout the entire State of South Carolina, we decide, for the purposes of this trial, in favor of the jurisdiction. This is in accordance with the uniform practice of the court, without objection from any quarter, for nearly half a century." United States v. Butler, 1 Hughes, 457, 463.

And in 1886, it was said by Simonton, J., holding the Circuit Court: "All parts of the State of South Carolina are within the jurisdiction of this court. Its process runs all through the State. It does not know, in the sense which affects its jurisdiction, either the eastern or western district." Young v. Merchants' Ins. Co., 29 Fed. Rep. 273, 275.

However we are relieved from considering the effect upon the jurisdiction of a Circuit Court having jurisdiction throughout a State, constituting a single judicial district, of a part of the district being subjected to the jurisdiction of the district court clothed with circuit court powers, as the act of February 6, 1889, c. 113, 25 Stat. 655, in terms "established a circuit court of the United States in and for the western district of Arkansas, the northern district of Mississippi and the western district of South Carolina, respectively, as the said districts are now constituted by law;" and withdrew circuit court powers from said district courts.

By the act of April 26, 1890, c. 165, 26 Stat. 71, it was provided that there should be "four regular terms of the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina in each year, as follows: In the city of Greenville on the

Opinion of the Court.

first Monday of February and on the first Monday in August; in the city of Charleston on the first Monday of April; and in the city of Columbia on the fourth Monday of November; " and that "the office of the clerk of said court shall be kept in the cities of Charleston and of Greenville, and the clerk shall reside in one of the said cities and shall have a deputy in the other." And although the act then went on to prescribe terms "of the District Courts for the Eastern District of South Carolina," and "of the District Court in the Western District of South Carolina," we think the operation of the prior sections was not thereby affected.

It may be added that in the legislative, executive and judicial appropriation act of May 28, 1896; с. 252, §§ 7, 9, appropriations were made for the salaries (among others) of the United States district attorney "for the eastern and western districts of the district of South Carolina," and of the United States marshal "for the eastern and western districts of the district of South Carolina." 29 Stat. 140.

From this review of the statutes we are unable to arrive at any other conclusion than that in 1894, when these proceedings were had, there were not two judicial districts in the State of South Carolina, to the territorial limits of each of which the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court was confined; and that the exceptions in this regard must be held not to have been well taken.

It is also suggested in the brief for plaintiff in error that error supervened in that the record does not affirmatively show the issue of the venire for the grand and petit juries; nor that the defendant was arraigned; nor that he was personally present when the verdict was rendered and sentence pronounced.

But the record does show that the indictment was duly returned; that motions to quash the indictment and the venire of grand and petit juries were made and overruled; that the defendant pleaded "not guilty" to said indictment; that the trial came on on that issue, and a petit jury was duly empanelled and sworn; that trial was had and a verdict of guilty returned, and sentence thereon entered; and that no exceptions

Opinion of the Court.

were saved to any of these proceedings other than the excерtions before mentioned.

The result is that the judgment must be

Affirmed.

BARRETT v. UNITED STATES (No. 2).

ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

No. 175. Argued January 21, 1898.- Decided February 21, 1899.

It having been decided in Barrett v. United States, ante, 218, that the State of South Carolina constitutes but one judicial district, it follows that the indictment in this case was properly remitted to the next session of the District Court of that district.

THE case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Charles C. Lancaster for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Assistant Attorney General Boyd for defendants in

error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the

court.

This was an indictment for conspiracy under section 5440 of the Revised Statutes, found by the grand jury "in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of South Carolina begun and holden at Columbia within and for the district aforesaid, on the fourth Monday of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-four," and on motion of the "United States attorney for the District of South Carolina," was by the Circuit Court, January 30, 1895, by order entered on its minutes, "remitted from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of South Carolina to the district court of the United States for the western district of South Carolina."

1

Opinion of the Court.

At the February term, 1895, of the District Court held at Greenville, in the western district, the District Judge presiding, the defendant pleaded not guilty; the cause was tried, defendant was found guilty, and, thereupon, was sentenced to imprisonment and fine. From this judgment a writ of error was prosecuted to this court.

On the trial defendant raised certain objections presented by exceptions, which are enumerated in a bill of exceptions; by demurrer that the indictment was found in the eastern district of South Carolina, although the crime was charged to have been committed in the western district; by preliminary plea, "that the jurors of the grand jury by whom the indictment was found were drawn, summoned and empanelled from both the eastern and western districts of South Carolina, instead of from the western district of said State alone;" that the indictment was found in the circuit court of the United States for South Carolina, held in the city of Columbia, in the eastern district of said State, and was remitted to the district court for the western district of said State; by motion on the close of the testimony for the United States, "that the attorney for the United States be required to elect on which one of the conspiracies he would ask for a conviction," that is, of several distinct conspiracies, which the evidence tended to show; by motion in arrest that the grand jurors, who found the indictment, were drawn, summoned and empanelled from both the districts when the crime was charged to have been committed in one of them; that the indictment was found in the eastern district at a time when there was no law authorizing the "holding any court of the United States for the western district of South Carolina;" because the indictment was remitted "not to the district court of the United States for the eastern district of South Carolina, but to the district court of the western district of said State."

The court overruled all these objections, in whatever form presented, and defendant excepted.

Sections 817, 1037 and 1038 of the Revised Statutes are as follows:

"SEC. 817. The grand and petit jurors for the district

Opinion of the Court.

court, sitting in the western district of South Carolina, shall be drawn from the inhabitants of said district who are liable, according to the laws of said State, to do jury duty in the courts thereof; and all jurors shall be drawn during the sitting of the court for the next succeeding term."

"SEC. 1037. Whenever the district attorney deems it necessary, any circuit court may, by order entered on its minutes, remit any indictment pending therein to the next session of the district court of the same district, where the offence charged in the indictment is cognizable by the said district court. And in like manner any district court may remit to the next session of the circuit court of the same district any indictment pending in the said district court.

"SEC. 1038. Any district court may, by order entered on its minutes, remit any indictment pending therein to the next session of the circuit court for the same district, when, in the opinion of such district court, difficult and important questions of law are involved in the case; and thereupon the proceedings in such case shall be the same in the circuit court as if such indictment had been originally found and presented therein."

No objection was raised that the petit jury by which defendant was tried was not, and it was conceded at the bar that it was, in fact, drawn from the inhabitants of the western district of the district of South Carolina, and no complaint is preferred in that regard.

We have just decided that the State of South Carolina constitutes but one judicial district, and, this being so, the indictment was properly remitted, in accordance with section 1037, to the next session of the district court of that district, begun and holden on the first Monday of February, 1895, in the western district of the district.

All other questions have been disposed of adversely to plaintiff in error in the preceding case.

Judgment affirmed.