Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/347

 Cmcurr Covrr, Pemgfylvania Dilirict. 341 · On the 18th of May the Judges of rue Couvsr delivered !79g· thei! opinions to the following effec}. _ VVV Psrsus, j'a._;0iee :-I have eonlidered the objections made to _ the pannels, and do not conceive thefe objections relevant. Although in ordinary cafes it would be well to accommodate our practice with that of the State, yet the judiciary of the _. United State: lhould not be fettered and controuled in its opera- tions by a llrict adherence to State regulations and practice. But I fee not that in a liberal view and conitruction of the laws of the lbzited Stuter, on this fubject, a ri `d adherence to all the local and mconomical regulations of the ggtate, is direcied or ne- V celliiry. It fhould feem, that the moll pointed reference was had to the delignation and qualification of jurors, and not to the exact numbers of which the pannel lhould conlifl. The Le- gillature of a State have in their conlideration a variety of loca! arrangements, which cannot be adapted to the more expanded policy of the nation. It never could have been in the contem- plation of Congrefr, by any reference to State regulations, to, defeat the operation of the national laws. Now,thcre are cafes, which have been {lated, in which fome of the criminal laws of the United State: may be rendered impracticable, by an adherence to the rule of numbers prefcribed as to jurors, in criminal cafes, by the State law; and efpecially if there mult be but one pau- nel, as has been contended. Yet, the moli fubltantial requiiites, to wit, the qualifications of jurors and mode of feleclion, may be adhered to. As to the claufe in the law of the Uni1‘edSz‘ute:, directing, that •¢ the laws of the States (with great exceptions) {hall be regarded as rules of decilion, in trials at common law in the Courts of the United State:," I do not think it applies to the c:=fe before us. ` All the arguments founded on the inconveniences to the de- fendants, if in this cafe particularly any fuch exilt (of which I` much doubt) weigh lightly when fet againit the delays and ob- ltructions which the ob'ection would throw in the way of the execution of the laws oflthe nation. Parrnusox, _‘}'rJ}i:e:—'l.`he objections that have been fug- geiied on this occalion, are principally founded on the zgth fec- tion of the judicial act of Congrefs, which refers the Federal - Courts to the State laws, for certain regulations rci'pe&ing ju- - ries. But the words of this reference are clearly reliricled to the mode of deiignating the jury, by lot, or otherwili: ; and to the qualifications which are requilite forjurors; according to the laws and practice of the rrthcctive States. Since, therefore, the aft of Congrefs docs not iublf fix: the number of jurors; nor exptefsly adopt any State rule for the purpofe, it is a necef- fary confequence that the fuhjecl mult depend on the common law; and, by the common law, the Court may direct any nuyn- - ·er

�