JURISDICTION. That the power to issue a mandamus is confined, exclusively, to cases in which it may be necessary for the exercise of a jurisdiction already existing; as for instance, if the court below refuse to proceed to judgment, there a mandamus, in the nature of a procedendo, may issue. It was therefore held, that a mandamus could not be issued by the circuit court of the United States to the register of a land-office in Ohio, commanding him to issue a final certificate of purchase to the plaintiff, for certain lands in that state, to which the plaintiff laid claim under the laws of the United States. Nor will the circumstance that the parties are citizens of different states, make any difference. The proper remedy for the party is, an action against the officer for damages, or to recover the specific property.—McIntire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504. McCluny v. Silliman, 6 Wheat., 589. In Kendall v. The United States, it was decided that the circuit court for the District of Columbia had power to issue a mandamus to the postmaster-general, commanding him to do a certain act in his official character. But this power was there held to be confined to the circuit court of that District; and the court said it resulted from the 3d section of the Act of Congress of February 27th, 1801, which declares that the circuit court (of that district) and the judges thereof, shall have all the power by law vested in the circuit courts of the United States. The circuit courts referred to, were those established by the Act of February 13th, 1801. The repeal of that law, fifteen months afterwards, and after the circuit court for this district had gone into operation, under the Act of 27th of February, 1801, could not in any manner affect that law any further than was provided by the repealing act.-12 Peters' S. C. Rep., 524. This was decided by six judges against three. Chief Justice Taney, J. J. Barbour and Catron, dissented from the opinion of the court and adhered to the doctrine of the cases of Wood v. McIntire & McCluny v. Silliman, and attempted to show that there exists no just cause, either in law or reason, for giving a more extended construction to the powers of the circuit court for the District of Columbia, than has been prescribed to the other circuit courts. See the dissenting opinions of Taney, C. J., and of Barbour, J., in the above case, 626 to 653. 23. What is prescribed as to the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit court? By the Act of September 24th, 1789, section 11, the circuit court shall have exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, except where that act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States otherwise provide. See district court-post, and concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts, of crimes and offences cognizable therein. Under this act, the circuit court has jurisdiction in an indictment against a consul from a foreign power, where the punishment is beyond the grade assigned to the district court. -United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall., 297. The jurisdiction of the circuit court, in criminal cases, is confined to offences committed within the district for which those courts respectively sit, where they are committed on land.—Serg. on Const. Law, 129. 24. How far is the criminal jurisdiction of the circuit courts final ? It is final in all cases, unless on points in which the opinions of the judges are opposed.-United States v. Moore, 3 Cranch, 171. 25 What is the rule as to military offences? That they are not within the jurisdiction of the circuit courts. They never are cognizable in common law courts.-Houston v. Moore, 5 Wheaton, 29. 26. What is the rule as to the concurrent jurisdiction between the circuit courts and state courts in criminal cases? That they have no concurrent jurisdiction, except it is expressly vested by Act of Congress; as by the Act of 21st April, 1806, concerning counterfeits of the current coin of the United States.-Serg. on Const. Law, 130. People v. Lynch, 11 Johns. Rep., 549. The circuit court has jurisdiction over crimes committed within any place situated in the district in which it sits, which has been ceded to the United States, with the consent of the state legislature, for the purpose of erecting forts, &c.-United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 95. Though the district court has cognizance of all penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States, yet where the law declares the act to be an offence, and treats it as a criminal act, it must be prosecuted criminally in the circuit court; and the distinction ought to be preserved, because penalties and forfeitures may be remitted by the secretary of the treasury; but crimes and offences can only be remitted by the president.-United States v. Mann, 1 Gall., 177. 27. In what case may the circuit court exercise appellate jurisdiction by writ of error to the district court? By the 22d section of the judiciary act of 1789, final decrees and judg. ments in civil actions in a district court, where the matter in dispute exceeds the sum or value of fifty dollars, exclusive of costs, may be re-examined, and reversed or affirmed in a circuit court holden in the same district, upon a writ of error, whereto shall be annexed and returned therewith, at the day and place therein mentioned, an authenticated transcript of the record and assignment of errors, and prayer for reversal with citation' to the adverse party, signed by the judge of such district court, or a justice of the supreme court, the adverse party having at least twenty days notice. But there shall be no reversal on such writ of error, for error in ruling any plea in abatement, other than a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, or for any error in fact. As the district judge cannot sit in the circuit court on a writ of error to the district court, there can be no opposition of opinion under the 6th section of the Act of 1802, and therefore in such case no removals to the supreme court can take place by certificate.-United States v. Lancaster, 5 Wheaton, 434. Nor does a writ of error lie from the supreme court to the circuit court, to remove a judgment rendered upon a writ of error from the district court.-United States v. Ten Brock, 2 Wheaton, 442. The issue of nul tiel record is an issue of fact, and therefore, a judg ment upon that issue cannot be reversed in a circuit court on a writ of error.-United States v. Cook, 2 Mason, 22. -- An action of debt, for a penalty, is a civil cause within the act.Jacob v. The United States, 1 Brock., 524. A bill against a vessel, claiming forfeiture thereof, for exporting cannon, &c., under the Act 22d May, 1795, is a civil cause.-United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall., 297. 28. What is the rule as to admiralty and maritime cases? That no writ of error lies from the circuit to the district courts, in such cases.- United States v. Wonson, 1 Gall., 5. Error lies to the district court on a judgment given there in a scire facias to repeal letters patent, under the Act of February, 1793, section 10 -Stearns v. Berrett, Mason, 153. 29. In what cases does an appeal lie from the district to the circuit court? Appeals to the circuit court generally take place in civil causes of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction.-Serg. on Const. Law, 137. By the Act of March 3, 1803, section 2, (2 Story's Laws, 905), it is enacted, that, from all final judgments or decrees in any of the district courts of the United States, an appeal, where the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of fifty dollars, shall be allowed to the circuit court next to be holden in the district where such final judgment or decree may be rendered.-Privateer Montgomery v. Schooner Betsy, 1 Gall., 416. The appeal is confined to civil cause of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. The word judgment, in the Act of March 3d, 1803, is not used in contradistinction to decree, but as explanatory and equivalent.-United States v. Wonson, 1 Gall., 5; nor, on the other hand, does a writ of error lie in an admiralty or maritime cause, nor on a judgment entered on a bond given by the claimant to restore the goods, under the 89th section of the collection law. McLellan v. United States, 1 Gall., 227. Wescott v. Bradford, 4 Wash. C. C. Kep., 496. 30. What is the effect of an appeal in an admiralty or maritime cause? It removes the whole proceedings, and opens the facts as well as the law. It suspends the sentence, and it is not res judicata till the final sentence of the appellate court. This is the case, not only in appeals from the district to the circuit court, but in appeals to the supreme court also. -Yeaton v. United States, 5 Cranch, 280. The San Pedro, 2 Wheaton, 132. Stratton v. Jarvis, 8 Peters' S. C. Rep., 4. By an appeal from the district to the circuit court, the latter becomes possessed of the cause, and executes its own judgment. The property, or its proceeds, in proceedings in rem, follow the appeal in the circuit court. But if a further appeal take place to the supreme court, the property or its proceeds remains in the circuit court; because the supreme court does not execute its own judgment.-Brig Hollen, Mason, 431. McLellan v. United States, 1 Gal., 227. The Collector, 6 Wheaton, 194. The Grotius, 1 Gall., 503. Jennings v. Carson, 2 Cond. Rep., 2. United States v. Preston, Att'y. Gen. of Louisiana, 3 Peters' S C. Rep., 57. 31. What is the rule as to the power of the circuit courts to grant amendments in causes that come before them upon appeal? That the courts may grant amendments in the various causes that come before them by appeal; they will grant them in information in rem. And an amendment will be allowed, though it introduce a new count, containing a new substantive offence; or though it may affect sureties. But not if the statute of limitation has run against it.-Schooner Harmony, 1 Gall., 123. 32. What is the rule as to the power of the circuit court to issue a certiorari or procedendo to the district court? No Act of Congress gives the circuit court such power. Therefore, where the circuit court, in an action of debt, issued a certiorari to the district court, in pursuance of which the proceedings were removed to the circuit court, it was held that the district court might have refused to obey the writ.-Patterson v. United States, 2 Wheaton, 221. OF THE DISTRICT COURT. 1. What have Congress provided in regard to the jurisdiction of the district court? By the 9th section of the Act of Sept. 24, 1789, it is enacted, that the district courts shall have, exclusively of the state court, cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States, and committed within their respective districts or upon the high seas, where no other punishment than whipping not exceeding thirty stripes, a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months, is to be inflicted; and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation, or trade, of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable from the sea, by vessels of ten or more tons' burthen, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas; saving to suitors, in all cases, the right of a common law remedy, where the common law is.competent to give it: and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, and other waters than as aforesaid made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States. And shall also have cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, or the circuit courts, as the case may be, of all causes where an alien sues for a tort, only in violation of the law of nations, or a treaty of the United States. And shall have cognizance, concurrent 2s last mentioned, of all suits at common law, where he United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of casts, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the several states, of all suits against consuls, or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description above mentioned. And the trial of issues of fact, in the district courts, in all cases except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury. By the Act of March 3, 1815, sec. 5, the district court has cognizance concurrent with the courts and magistrates of the several states, and the circuit courts of the United States, of all suits at common law, where the United States or any officer thereof, under an authority of any Act of Congress, sue, although the debt, claim, or other matter in dispute, shall not amount to one hundred dollars. The 14th section of the Act of Sept. 24, 1789, vests in the judges of the district courts, power to grant writs of habeas corpus, for the purpose of an inquiry into the cause of commitment. Other acts give them power to make rules to issue writs, summonses, &c. An injunction may be issued by the district judge under the Act of March 3, 1820, sections 4, 5, where proceedings have taken place by warrant and distress against a debtor of the United States, or his sureties. 2. What is understood by the phrase "all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction ?" The words "all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" include all maritime causes, whether peculiarly of admiralty jurisdiction or not.-Penhollow v. Doane, 3 Dall., 54. Glass v. Schooner Betsy, 3 Ib., 6. Brown v. United States, 8 Cranch, 137. The English distinction be tween an instance and prize court does not apply. The word "maritime," it would seem, was inserted for the purpose of vesting a jurisdiction larger than that which, under the statutes of 13th and 15th Richard II., was alleged to belong to the admiralty of England, and of making that jurisdiction not dependent on the limits of place, but on the nature of the cause.-De Lovio v. Boit, 2 Gall., 473. The admiralty and maritime jurisdiction invested by the constitution is necessarily exclusive of all state authority.-Serg. on Const. Law, 193. Admiralty enters into the national policy and affects national rights, and may compromit the national sovereignty.-Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheaton, 337. Glass v. Schooner Betsy, 3 Dall., 6. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2. United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 145. The words of the constitution, declaring that the "judicial power shall attend to all causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction," must be taken to refer to the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of England -United States v. McGill, 4 Dall., 426. A case in admiralty does not in fact arise under the constitution or laws of the United States. Such cases are as old as navigation itself, and the law, admiralty and maritime, as it has existed for ages, is applied |