Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/304

 I ig! Casas ruled and adjudged in the ` 1793. eeedings againlt Amballiulors, or other public Miniitcrs, or their - domellacs, or domellic fervants, as a Court of Law can haveot exercife contitlentl with the law of nations; and original, but not exclulive, juri|`ili£l:on of all fuits brought by Ambalfadors, or other public Miniilers, or in which 2 Conful, or Vice·Con· {ul {hall be 2 party.” This provilion obviouily refpeéls civil fuits; but the trtbju?. declares, that •• the Circuit Court {hall have O ~ exclulive cognizanee of all crime: and #1:::: cognizable un- der the authority of the United Srnru, except where this a& other- wife provides, or the laws of the United Smit.: {hall othcrwife direél, and concurrent jurifdiflion with the Dillriils Courts of the crimes and oilences cognizablc therein." _This is a crimi- nal profecution, not otherwife provided for; and if the jurif- diction canbe excgpively veiled in the Circuit Court, it deilroys the origimrljurifdi ion given by the Conltitution to the Supreme Court. In juilice to the Lcgillature, therefore, fuch a eqn. ihuelion mult he rejefled; and the cognizance of the cafe be left, upon a conltitutional footing, exelulively to the Supreme Court. The argument is the more cogent from a conlidcra·, - tion of the rel`pe& which is due to Confuls, by the law of na- tions. Vutt. L. 2, c. 2. . 34. Rawls, the Diliriét Attgmey, itated in reply, that there was a material diftinftion between Public Minillers, and Confuls ; the former being intitled to high diplomatic privileges, which the latter, by the law of nations, had no right to claim; and he contended, that the Supreme Court has original, but not _ exclulive, juriftliflion of offences committed by Confulih That the Diitriét Court had jurifdiétion (exclulively of the State Courts) of all offences committed by Confuls, except where the punilhment to be infliéted exceeded thirty ftripes, a fine of one ‘ undred dollars, or the term of live months imprifonment : And that the Circuit Court had, in this refpeét, a concurrent jurif. diction with the Supreme Court as well aa the Didriélz Court. . If indeed this is acrime “ cognizable under the authority of the United Srnm," it is within the exprefs delegation of jurif- diflion to the Circuit Court. '· WV11.so:1, _7'z¢i¢e. Iam of opinion, that although the Con. llitution veils in the Supreme Court an original juril`:‘.i€tion,- in cafes like the prefent, it docs not preclude the Legillature from exercifing the power ohvcfling a caucurnwt j urililiétion, in 1'uch inferior Courts, as might bylaw be ellablifhed: And as the Legidature has exprcfsly declared, that the Circuit Court {hall have “ exclulive cognizance of all crimes and oflimces, eognizable under the agthotity of the United Stat¢·.r," Ithink the indiélment ou ht to e fullained. Inr.¤eLL, ffoyiige. I do not concur in this opinion, becaufe it appears to me, that for obvious rcafons of _publicCpol;p_y, the on ttutxon

�