Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/374

 368 Casts ruled and adjudged in the s !796. and fome cannon and other articles were feined. [then; upon vw`: full eonlideration, direéted that the information in ma, to in- force the forfeiture of the cannon, lhould be inftituted in the Dillriét Court 5 but I bound the defendant over to the Circuit Court, to anfwer perfonally for the olknce. "The pra&ieeha•, I believe, been conformable to this precedent : Forfeitures under the Excife laws have certainly been fued for, without exception, in the Diitriél Court, upon the general jurifdiétion given by the judicial a&, and not upon any fpecial jurifdiélion created for that purpofe. Wusou, _7sy}i¢v:—The Court is bound to take notice of a queltion of jurildiétion, whenever it ma occur, and however it may be propofed: For, if we are fatisded, that we have not legal cognizanee of any caufe;—-or, in terms lefs dire&, if we ' are not fatislied, that we have cognizance; we ought not to proceed to a decilidn, or an inveiiigation, upon its meritm In theprefent inllanee, it is a quelfion of great importance, . and, perhaps, of fome dimculty; but the ilrong bias of my mind, (which cncreafes, indeed, with every moment’s relec- tion_upon the fubjeét) is oppofed to the alledged 'urifdiétion of the court. It is fuppofed by the counfel for the informant, that the jurifdiétion is mainrainable on the politive words of the 1 ub felilim, and on a fair implication refulting from a view of the at/I and 22d_/£·¢?ian.r of the 'udicial a£l: : For, it is faid, if the Court has not original jurilldiflion, by the 111bf:Ei¤n, it can have no j urifdiélion at all; lincc its appellate jurifdidtion, cltablilhed by the 2 r/l and 22:1 _/Ebltbru, is confined to civil caufes. But the juriidiétion, in the cafe of crimes and oliences, ob- _ viouily relates to profecutions againlt perfons ; and when viewed in that light, neither the politive words of the 1 rrbjétiivn, nor _ 'any implication refulting from the arf and aadfeiiioux, can be ‘ applicable to the ptefent caufe, whic is not defcribed by the former, nor aii`e€ted by the latter: to take cognizance of a proceeding merely in rem, cannot be conlidcred as taking cog- nizance of a crime or offence. When, however, we advert to the jurifdiction given to the Diftriél Court, every lhadow of doubt feems to vaniih. The gllv jééliam of the act declares, that •• the Dillriét Court {hall have excltitive original cognizancc of all fuits for penalties and forfeitures, incurred under the laws of the United States." The excluiion is exprelfed in ltrong and unqualified terms; nor can it, by any rcafonable interpretation, be reiiriéled to a mere exclulion of the State Courts. Wlnetevet, indeed, a qualified exclulion is intended, the exprellion of the legillature correl`· ponds with that intention. Thus, it is provided, in two dill`e- _ rent f See ont. p. 311. United S::i:c: t:. Guise:.

�