which they had to consider, as a practical question, was, how far should the processes of each of these Circuit Courts, held within and for each of these Districts, run, in order to carry out, in the most effectual manner consistent with the liberty and convenience of the citizen, the purposes which were had in view in establishing the courts.

They decided, in the first place, that the assertion and maintenance of the criminal laws of the United States required that the processes of these courts should run everywhere within the territory of the United States; that wherever a criminal might be, he should be subject to arrest by a warrant from that Circuit Court of the United States which, under the Constitution and laws, had jurisdiction to try him; and therefore a bench warrant would run from Massachusetts to the most extreme part of the territory of the United States, to arrest a criminal who was indicted in the Circuit Court, and bring him before that court for trial. In that particular, the powers of the court had no territorial limits, except those of the United States; and in accordance with this, a process by which witnesses could be brought before the court in criminal trials ran throughout the entire territory of the United States. This was provided for in the Judiciary Act, to which I have already referred, and those provisions have always remained the same.1

1 [See Revised Statutes, § 1014.]

The next thing to be considered was, what criminals should be subject to the jurisdiction of each of these courts. The Constitution contained a provision which had some bearing on this subject, in its third article, which I will read :

"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."

It was found, on examination, that this was a defective provision; and accordingly the sixth amendment of the Constitution made further provision to this effect:

"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, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."

So far as regards the territorial jurisdiction of these courts, it is that he is to be tried "by an impartial jury," in the "district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall

have been previously ascertained by law." Neither of these provisions, however, has any reference to crimes committed out of the limits of any State. They are expressly confined to crimes committed in a State, and in the case of United States v. Dawson, 15 Howard, 467, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that neither of these provisions of the Constitution had any reference to crimes committed in the Indian country, out of the limits of any State, or of any organized Territory of the United States.

It is the close

Now, these being the provisions of the Constitution under which, and in subordination to which, Congress must of course legislate, they passed the act of the 13th of April, 1790, which is found in 1 Statutes at Large, 144, § 18. of that section: "The trial of crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out of the jurisdiction of any particular State, shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought." Now, there is a very large criminal jurisdiction exercised by the Circuit Courts of the United States over offences committed on the high seas, or against laws passed by Congress under their authority to regulate commerce, and to define and punish piracy and offences against the laws of nations, and in all that class of cases, as well as cases of crimes committed out of any State or Territory, on the land, which are still

offences against the laws of the United States, the criminal is to be tried in the Circuit Court of that district into which he is brought as a prisoner, supposing him to have been arrested abroad or on the high seas, or where he may first be arrested, if he has come voluntarily within that jurisdiction. So that all these provisions of the Constitution to which I have referred in regard to the trial of crimes committed within the States, are followed out and obeyed by trying criminals in that Circuit Court which is held in a district previously ascertained by law, within the limits of which the crime was committed, provided the crime was committed within the limits of a State. On the other hand, if it was on the high seas, or out of the limits of any State or organized Territory, then the Circuit Court has jurisdiction over the criminal, provided he was first brought compulsorily within their jurisdiction, or came voluntarily within it and was there arrested.1

This act of April 13, 1790, was re-enacted, without change, by what is now the existing law of March 3, 1825, found in 4 Statutes at Large, 145, § 14. That act of March 3, 1825, was a revision and re-enactment, with some changes and additions, of the criminal laws of the United States. The author of it was Mr. Webster. It is an act drawn with great precision and clearness, which has given

1 [As to the district into which the criminal is first brought, see United States v. Arwo, 19 Wallace, 486.]

rise to very few questions upon its language, or upon the meaning and effect of its provisions, and it is now the existing general criminal statute of the United States.1

I think this is all I need say to you in regard to the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts over criminals, except to add, what I shall explain somewhat hereafter, that the Circuit Court of the United States has, under the eleventh section of the Judiciary Act, general jurisdiction over all crimes and offences against the laws of the United States. It is a jurisdiction concurrent with that which belongs to the District Courts, and I shall speak more particularly of it when I come to speak of the District Courts, because there are various provisions in regard to remitting indictments from one court to another which it will be necessary to notice, and I think it can be better done in that connection.

I will now ask your attention to the civil jurisdiction of these courts, and you will find this described in the Judiciary Act, under § 11 (1 Statutes at Large, 78): —

“That the Circuit Courts shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several States, of all suits of a civil nature at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of costs, the sum or value of five hundred dollars, and the United States are plaintiffs or peti

1 [See Revised Statutes, Title LXX., Crimes.]