high seas; [Acts of June 5, 1794, sect. 6; act of Feb. 13, 1807; act of March 3, 1815, sect. 4.] 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 Original cognizance in maritime causes and of seizure under the laws of the United States. 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;[1] 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, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.[2] 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.[3] And shall also have cognizance, Concurrent jurisdiction. concurrent as last mentioned, of all suits at common law where the United States sue, and the matter in dispute amounts, exclusive of costs, to the sum or value of one hundred dollars. And shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the courts of the several States, of all suits against consuls or vice-consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.[4] And the trial of issues in fact, Trial of fact by jury. in the district courts, in all causes except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.
Kentucky district court.
[Obsolete.]
- ↑ Jurisdiction of the District Courts in cases of admiralty seizures, under laws of impost, navigation and trade. M‘Donough v. Danery, 3 Dall. 188; 1 Cond. Rep. 94. The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132. Glass et al. v. The Betsey, 3 Dall. 6; 1 Cond. Rep. 10. The Alerta, 3 Cranch, 359; 3 Cond. Rep. 425. The Merino et al., 9 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 623. The Josefa Segunda, 10 Wheat. 312; 6 Cond. Rep. 111. Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch, 2; 2 Cond. Rep. 2. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. Penhallow et al. v. Doane’s Adm’rs, 3 Dall. 54; 1 Cond. Rep. 21. United States v. Richard Peters, 3 Dall. 121; 1 Cond. Rep. 60. Hudson et al. v. Guestier, 6 Cranch, 281; 2 Cond. Rep. 374. Brown v. The United States, 8 Cranch, 110; 3 Cond. Rep. 56. The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 391; 5 Cond. Rep. 472. The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546; 4 Cond. Rep. 322. Slocum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1. Gelston et al. v. Hoyt, 3 Wheat. 246; 4 Cond. Rep. 244. The Bolina, 1 Gallis’ C. C. R. 75. The Robert Fulton, 1 Paine’s C. C. R. 620; Bee’s D. C. R. 11. De Lovio v. Beit et al., 2 Gallis’ C. C. R. 398. The Abby, 1 Mason’s Rep. 360. The Little Ann, Paine’s C. C. R. 40. Davis v. A New Brig, Gilpin’s D. C. R. 473. The Catharine, 1 Adm. Decis. 104.
- ↑
An information against a vessel under the
act of Congress of May 22, 1794,
on account of an alleged exportation of arms, is a case of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; and an appeal from the District to the Circuit Court, in such a case is sustainable. It is also a civil cause, and triable without the intervention of a jury, under the 9th section of the judicial act.
The United States v. La Vengeance, 3 Dall. 297; 1 Cond. Rep. 132.
The Sarah, 8 Wheat. 691; 5 Cond. Rep. 472.
The Abby, 1 Mason, 360.
The Little Ann, Paine’s C. C. R. 40.
When the District and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the right to maintain the jurisdiction attaches to that tribunal which first exercises it, and obtains possession of the thing. The Robert Fulton, Paine’s C. C. R. 620.
- ↑ Burke v. Trevitt, 1 Mason, 96. The courts of the United States have exclusive jurisdiction or all seizures made on land or water, for a breach of the laws of the United States, and any intervention of State authority, which by taking the thing seized out of the hands of the officer of the United States, might obstruct the exercise of this jurisdiction, is unlawful. Slocum v. Maybury, 2 Wheat. 1; 4 Cond. Rep. 1.
- ↑
Davis v. Packard, 6 Peters, 41.
As an abstract question, it is difficult to understand on what ground a State court can claim jurisdiction of civil suits against foreign consuls. By the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; and the judiciary act of 1789 gives to the district courts of the United States, exclusively of the courts of the several States, jurisdiction of all suits against consuls and vice consuls, except for certain offences enumerated in this act.
Davis v. Packard, 7 Peters, 276.
If a consul, being sued in a State court, omits to plead his privilege of exemption from the suit, and afterwards, on removing the judgment of the inferior court to a higher court by writ of error, claims the privilege, such an omission is not a waiver of the privilege. If this was to be viewed merely as a personal privilege, there might be grounds for such a conclusion. But it cannot be so considered; it is the privilege of the country or government which the consul represents. This is the light in which foreign ministers are considered by the law of nations; and our constitution and law seem to put consuls on the same footing in this respect. Ibid.
