trict judge, who resides in the district for which he is appointed.

These district courts also have a limited jurisdiction. They have jurisdiction of cases for penalties and forfeitures under the laws of the United States; for seizures on the water within three miles of the shore; where the United States are plaintiffs; where consuls and vice consuls are defendants; for repeal of letters patent for inventions, and in several other

cases.

TERRITORIAL COURTS.

There is another class of inferior courts established by congress, in accordance with the provisions of the constitution, and these are the territorial courts, that is, courts held in the territories of the United States.

The territory of Wisconsin has a supreme court composed of three judges, which meets twice a year at Madison.

The territory is divided into three districts, in each of which a district court is held by one of the judges of the supreme court of the territory.

The territory of Iowa is divided into three districts, in each of which circuit courts are held, and the

Have these courts a limited jurisdiction?

Of what cases have they jurisdiction?

What other class of inferior courts have been established by congress?

What are the courts in Wisconsin?

three judges of the circuit courts compose the supreme court, which meets annually at Iowa city. As a portion of this territory has lately been admitted into the union, a new organization will necessarily take place in regard to the courts, &c.

TRIAL BY JURY.

An amendment to the constitution has secured the right of trial by jury to all persons in all criminal cases, and in all civil suits where the sum in controversy exceeds twenty dollars. To this, there are, however, the following exceptions, viz.: cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service, in time of war or public danger.

The constitution also provides that crimes shall be tried in the state where committed. If not committed in any state, congress appoints a place for trial.

The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and shall be confronted with the witnesses against him. He may also have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and may have the assistance of counsel.

What are the courts in Iowa ?

What is said about the courts in Iowa?

To whom is the trial by jury secured by the constitution?
What exceptions?

Where shall the accused be tried?

Of what shall he be informed, and with whom shall he be con

fronted?

What may he have for obtaining witnesses?

In the early history of the English courts, the accused was not allowed any witnesses or counsel. Such a course of proceeding would be inconsistent with a free government. And therefore the constitution provides that the accused shall have both witnesses and counsel if he chooses.

In ancient monarchies a person might be seized by the command of the king, and punished without any formal trial, or with a trial before the king or some of his ministerial officers. And in some monarchical countries at the present time, certain crimes may be punished in the same way. When such a course is pursued, innocent persons are liable to be accused and punished before they have time or opportunity to establish their innocence. The guilty are liable to be punished too severely. Private revenge and personal feeling might be gratified under the name of the administration of justice.

To provide against these and other evils, an amendment to the constitution declares that " no person shall be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury."

A grand jury is composed of not less than twelve and not more than twenty-three "good and lawful

May he have counsel ?

In ancient monarchies how was the criminal law administered? How is it in some monarchical countries at the present day?

What objection to such a mode of procedure?

What does an amendment of the constitution declare on this subject?

Of whom is a grand jury composed?

men," selected by the sheriff from the county or district in and for which the court is held. It is the duty of the grand jury to act as accusers of suspected persons. The accusation must be written, and at least twelve of the grand jury, under oath, must agree, or the suspected person cannot be held to trial. If the accusation of the grand jury is founded on their own personal knowledge of the facts, it is called a presentment; if on facts derived from the testimony of others, it is called an indictment.

After the suspected person has been thus legally accused he may be held to trial. The jury by which he is tried is called the petit or traverse jury. They consist also of good and lawful men, summoned from the body of the county or district in which the court sits. The most usual number summoned is forty-eight; but only twelve are sworn on any one trial. This jury is entirely separate from, and independent of, the grand jury. They must be disinterested and unbiassed men, or the accused may challenge them, as it is called, and have other persons substituted in their place.

The twelve jurymen who are sworn on any trial must all agree upon a verdict of guilty, or the ac

How many of the grand jurors must agree in order to indict a person? What is a presentment?

What is an indictment?

When can a person be held to trial?

What is a jury by which a person is tried called?

How many of the traverse jury are sworn on any one trial?
Has the traverse jury any connexion with the grand jury?
Must all the twelve on a jury agree in order to convict?

cused cannot be convicted. If he is convicted, the judge then passes sentence, and the executive officer enforces the sentence.

Therefore no person can be punished for a high crime, without being first accused by twelve of his peers, and afterwards found guilty by twelve others of his peers; so that he must be declared guilty by at least twenty-four disinterested men, or he cannot be legally punished.

The same amendment of the constitution provides still further, that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb for the same offence." Which means that a person, having been tried once for an offence, and acquitted or convicted by the verdict of a jury, and judgment has been given upon such verdict, cannot be tried again for the same offence.

It does not mean that a person cannot be tried a second time for the same offence, if the jury has been discharged without giving a verdict, or having given a verdict and judgment arrested, or a new trial has been granted in favor of the accused; for in such cases he has not yet been put in jeopardy of life and limb.

In early times suspected persons were sometimes put to the rack, or subjected to various other tortures, under the pretence of forcing them to confess their guilt.

How many men must in the end declare a person guilty before he can be punished?

Can a person be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb for the

same offence?

In early times how were suspected persons often treated?