Page:Federalist, Dawson edition, 1863.djvu/729

 there is a Court of Chancery which proceeds like ours, but neither Courts of Admiralty, nor of Probates, in the sense in which these last are established with us. In that State the Courts of common law have the cognizance of those causes, which with us are determinable in the Courts of Admiralty and of Probates, and of course the jury trial is more extensive in New Jersey, than in New York. In Pennsylvania, this is perhaps still more the case, for there is no Court of Chancery in that State, and its common-law Courts have equity jurisdiction. It has a Court of Admiralty, but none of Probates, at least on the plan of ours. Delaware has in these respects imitated Pennsylvania. Maryland approaches more nearly to New York, as does also Virginia, except that the latter has a plurality of Chancellors. North Carolina bears most affinity to Pennsylvania; South Carolina to Virginia. I believe, however, that in some of those States which have distinct Courts of Admiralty, the causes depending in them are triable by juries. In Georgia there are none but common-law Courts, and an appeal of course lies from the verdict of one jury to another, which is called a special jury, and for which a particular mode of appointment is marked out. In Connecticut, they have no distinct Courts either of Chancery or of Admiralty, and their Courts of Probates have no jurisdiction of causes. Their common-law Courts have admiralty, and, to a certain extent, equity jurisdiction. In cases of importance, their General Assembly is the only Court of Chancery. In Connecticut, therefore, the trial by jury extends in practice further than in any other State yet mentioned. Rhode Island is, I believe, in this particular, pretty much in the situation of Connecticut. Massachusetts and New Hampshire, in regard to the blending of law, equity, and admiralty jurisdictions, are