Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

intemperate or argumentative manner. They must, however, make it perfectly clear to the jury that although they are bound by what the Court says as to the law, they are under no obligation to take the Court's view of the facts. A judge may intimate or express his opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner provided he leaves no doubt upon the jury's mind that they are free to come to another conclusion if they are so disposed.

It has been decided in this circuit that the judge may not, after the jury have retired and have reported their inability to agree, tell them that in his opinion the prisoner is guilty. It has been thought by our Circuit Court of Appeals that an expression of opinion by the judge at such a time is likely to have an undue influence upon the action of the jury.1

108. Excepting to Judge's Charge.-The prisoner may except to anything in the judge's charge which he regards as erroneous. In order that the exception shall avail him, it is necessary that his counsel at the time it is taken shall point out specifically what particular portion of the charge is alleged to be erroneous. The object of this rule is obvious. A judge may consume an hour in charging the jury. By a slip of the tongue he may say something or several things which are not good law. If the prisoner's counsel is free to put in a general exception to the entire charge, the judge will not have his attention called to those matters in which it was supposed he was wrong. If they were brought to his notice he would have had an opportunity before the jury retired to correct the mistakes he had inadvertently made.

109. The Jurisdiction of District Courts Over Suits for Federal Penalties, Forfeitures and Seizures.—As we have seen, the District Courts are given jurisdiction exclusive of the Courts of the States of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred under the laws of the United States and of

1 Foster vs. United States, 188 Fed. 305.

all seizures under the laws of the United States on land or on waters not within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction.

110. Suits for Penalties and Forfeitures and to Enforce Seizures Are Civil Proceedings.-There are a number of statutes of the United States which impose pecuniary penalties for various breaches of the Federal law and provide that such penalties may be enforced by suit; as, for example, the penalty for importing under contract an alien laborer;1 and the penalties imposed upon a railroad for violating the Safety Appliance Act or the Hours of Service Act.2 A suit to collect such a penalty is, when the liberty of the defendant is not imperiled, a civil proceeding. A verdict should be given upon a preponderance of evidence. The Court may instruct the jury to find for one party or the other. The defendant, if an individual cannot be compelled to testify against himself.3

The latter constitutional guarantee has no application to corporations. They may be forced to furnish evidence of their own guilt.*

Under the customs and revenue laws of the United States, under the Food and Drug Act and the Insecticide Act, and perhaps under other statutes, real or personal property may become liable to forfeiture to the United States. Such forfeiture is not incurred unless somebody has done something by law forbidden. It usually cannot be enforced unless somebody has committed a criminal act. Nevertheless, a suit for its enforcement is a civil proceeding. The judge may instruct a verdict. The jury may upon a preponderance of the evidence find in favor of the Government.5

3

'Hepner vs. United States, 213 U. S. 103.

C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. vs. United States, 220 U. S. 559.

Hepner vs. United States (supra).

'B. & O. R. R. Co. vs. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. S. 612.

Grain Distillery No. 8 vs. United States, 204 Fed. 429; Lilienthal's Tobacco vs. United States, 97 U. S. 237; Four Packages vs. United States, 97 U. S. 404.

CHAPTER IV.

CIVIL CONTROVERSIES OVER WHICH THE JURISDICTION OF THE DISTRICT COURTS IS EXCLUSIVE OF

THAT OF THE STATES.

111. The District Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction in Admiralty.-No State Court may exercise jurisdiction in admiralty. Every case in which it is sought to use the distinctive processes of the admiralty for the vindication of a maritime right is within the admiralty jurisdiction and therefore may be brought in a District Court of the United States and not elsewhere.

What processes are peculiar to a Court of Admiralty and what rights are in their nature essentially maritime are inquiries which may be most profitably made in connection with the study of the admiralty law. Their discussion here would carry us too far afield. It should, however, be noted that the fact that a controversy may be cognizable in the admiralty does not necessarily mean that the parties to it may not properly carry it into a Court of Law of a State or, in some cases, of the United States. If they are content to seek only the relief which such other Court is competent to give, they may there try out the differences between them, despite the fact that such disputes have their origin in a maritime transaction.

Matters of prize are so peculiarly of admiralty jurisdiction that it is hard to conceive of any common law proceeding applicable to them. Exclusive jurisdiction over all such cases is expressly given to the Courts of the United States. The closely analogous proceedings taken to enforce seizures on land made by the authority of the laws of the United States, are in fact, a part of the penal or quasi-penal jurisdiction of the Federal Courts. Something has already been said about them. Jurisdiction over them is necessarily

vested exclusively in the Courts of the sovereign for the vindication of whose laws they are decreed.

112. The District Courts of the United States Have Exclusive Jurisdiction Over All Cases Arising Under the Patent and Copyright Laws.-The law of patents and of copyrights cannot be here discussed. A case does not arise under the patent or the copyright laws unless it is brought to assert a right given by them. The Courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction over a controversy merely because a patent or copyright may be incidentally involved in it.

113. The District Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction in Bankruptcy.-The jurisdiction of the District Courts to adjudge a debtor a bankrupt, to administer his estate in bankruptcy, and to grant or to refuse him a discharge from such of his debts as are dischargeable in bankruptcy, is exclusive of all other Courts. Moreover, whenever a Federal bankruptcy law is in force, the operation of all State insolvency laws is suspended, so far as concerns persons and transactions coming within the purview of the Bankruptcy Act. It is, however, true that certain rights created by the bankrupt law, as, for example, the right of the trustee in bankruptcy to vacate a preferential conveyance, may be enforced in State Courts. The consideration of the very important branch of the jurisdiction of the District Court forms a part of all treatises on the law of bankruptcy and may not with profit be here further considered.

114. Federal Courts and Judges Have Exclusive Jurisdiction to Release by Habeas Corpus Persons Held in Federal Custody.-The power of Federal Courts and judges to issue writs of habeas corpus and the procedure under such writs are considered in another chapter. It is sufficient here to point out that no State Court or judge has any power to discharge anyone from Federal custody.

The whole question was reviewed by CHIEF JUSTICE TANEY in an opirion of great interest and ability.1 One Booth had been arrested under a wairant issued by a United States commissioner for a violation of the Fugitive Slave Law. He we charged with having assisted a negro slave to escape from the custody of a United States deputy marshal. He had been committed by a United States commissioner for the action of the United States District Court for the District of Wisconsin. He applied for a writ of habeas corpus to a State judge. The judge granted it and upon hearing released him. The Supreme Court of the State affirmed the action of the judge below. Subsequently he was indicted by the United States Grand Jury, again arrested by the Federal authorities, tried, convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. The State Court on habeas corpus a second time discharged him from the custody of the Federal authorities. The Supreme Court of the United States said:

"We do not question the authority of State Court or Judge who is authorized by the laws of the State to issue the writ of habeas corpus, to issue it in any case where the party is imprisoned within its territorial limits, provided it does not appear, when the application is made, that the person imprisoned is in custody under the authority of the United States. The Court or judge has a right to inquire, in this mode of proceeding, for what cause and by what authority the prisoner is confined within the territorial limits of the State sovereignty. And it is the duty of the marshal, or other person having the custody of the prisoner, to make known to the Judge or Court, by a proper return, the authority by which he holds him in custody. *** But after the return is made and the State Judge or Court judicially apprised that the party is in custody under the authority of the United States, they can proceed no further. They then know that the prisoner is within the dominion and jurisdiction of another Government, and that neither the writ of habeas corpus, nor any other process issued under State authority, can pass over the line of division between the two sovereignties. He is then within the dominion and exclusive jurisdiction of

1 Abelman vs. Booth, 21 How. 506.

« AnteriorContinuar »