United States Statutes at Large/Volume 2/9th Congress/1st Session/Chapter 14
Chap. XIV.—An Act to extend jurisdiction in certain cases to state judges and state courts.[1]
Jurisdiction given to certain state courts in cases of forfeitures and penalties under the laws of the U. S.
1808, ch. 51.Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the respective county courts within, or next adjoining the revenue districts herein after mentioned, shall be and are hereby authorized to take cognizance of all complaints and prosecutions for fines, penalties, and forfeitures, arising under the revenue laws of the United States, in the districts of Champlain, Sacket Harbor, Oswego, Gennessee, Niagara, and Buffaloe Creek, in the state of New York, and in the district of Presque Isle, in the state of Pennsylvania, and the district attornies of New York and Pennsylvania, respectively, are hereby authorized and directed to appoint, by warrant, an attorney as their substitute or deputy, respectively, to prosecute for the United States in each of the said county courts, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his duty, as prosecutor aforesaid: Provided, that this authority shall not be construed to extend jurisdiction to the county courts aforesaid, over any civil cause, which may arise in any of those revenue districts, for the collection of duties payable to the United States; or of bonds or securities given for the security and payment of duties to the United States.
Criminal jurisdiction in certain cases conferred upon the courts.Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That the county courts aforesaid, or the first judge of each of said courts, shall be, and hereby are further authorized to exercise all and every power in the cases of a criminal nature, cognizable before them by virtue of the first section of this act, for the purpose of obtaining a mitigation or remission of any fine, penalty, or forfeiture, which may be exercised by the judges of the district courts in cases depending before them by virtue of the law of the United States,Powers given by the act of March 3, 1797, ch. 13, for the remission of forfeitures, to the judges of state courts. passed on the third day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, intituled “An act to provide for mitigating or remitting the forfeitures, penalties, and disabilities, accruing in certain cases therein mentioned.” And in the exercise of the authority, by this section given to said county courts, or to the first judges thereof, they shall be governed in every respect by the regulations, restrictions and provisoes of the law of the United States, passed on the third of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven, aforesaid; with this difference only, that instead of notifying the district attornies, respectively, said county courts, or the first judges thereof, as the case may be, shall, before exercising said authorities, cause reasonable notice to be given to the attorney who may have been appointed and sworn or affirmed to prosecute for the United States, in such court, that he may have an opportunity of showing cause against the mitigation or remission of such fine, penalty, or forfeiture.
Continuance of this act.
Continued 1808, ch. 51.Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That this act shall remain in force during the term of one year, from its passage, and from thence to the end of the next session of Congress thereafter, and no longer.[2]
Approved, March 8, 1806.
- ↑ In the case of Prigg v. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 539, where the question presented to the court arose out of the proceedings of a magistrate of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, under the law of Pennsylvania which interfered with the provisions of the act of Congress relating to the arrest of fugitives from labour, (act of February 12, 1793, chap. 7,) the magistrate of the state, having refused to execute the provisions of that law, the Court said, “As to the authority conferred on state magistrates by the fugitive law, while a difference of opinion exists, and may exist, on that point, in different states, whether state magistrates are bound to act under it; none is entertained by the court that state magistrates may, if they choose, exercise the authority, unless prohibited by the state legislatures.” 16 Peters, 622.
- ↑ By an act passed April 21, 1808, chap. 51, the provisions of this law are made perpetual and extended to the ports and harbors in Ohio.