Crneurr Court, Paw-lvunia Diilriét. 339 furelybe fatisliedby merely ·· tioningthe county. The ex- r7g5. prefs relatinnbetweenthe State andfederal lawson the [ub- W*·¢ ject, demands an analogous conelulion, in a cafe ariling under the jurifdiélion of the general Government; and the general reafons for furnilhing fueh infomation to lprifouen, acquire great additional force, from a conlideration o the dillance be- tween the place oftrial, and the place wheretheolence is chirgfldf to have been committed. the I n wertothefe exceptrh Bm§$rJ( attorneygenera of the United State:) and Resale (the attornriylof the dillriél) premifed, that they were alfo imprelliad with 0 propriety and neeellity of eltablrlhin , found and permanent principles on this lirll difcullion of gre do&rine of treafou, as it applied to the cxilling conliitution of the United States: But they contended, til:. That the exception to the number of jurors returned, and to the mode of returning feparate parmels,ought not to be allowed · They obferved, that the leading quellion on this poir·.t,ealled for adecilion, whether, when a Federal Court was referred by an ad: of Coagrgfr to State regulations for its government, the State law,in its lhiélc words,or in the praéiiee underit, llrould furniibtherule? But, even from the context olithejudieial a£iof Congrjr, an intention cannot reafonably be inferred, to incorporate all the provilions of the Pemyyvauiu a& to jurors, into the pra£tiee of the Federal Courts. The reference to the State laws refpects only the mode of delignating the ]u- ry by lot, or otherwife, and the qualification of the : it does not refpeet the number to be returned on the pairnel, which is liill left (under the power of framing write Suited to theexigency of every cafe `r IOL p. 58) in the diferetion of the Court, to be prefcribed by Veuire, or at common law.‘ But the Peuwluurin af}, without admitting fueh a diliinaion, mulk produce the greateli embarrallinent; for it prefcribcs a dillizrent number of jurors tobe returned to ditlierent Courts, and there is nothing inthe af} of Congr¢ to determine which number {hall be adopted here. . The a& of Pzmyjlvtmia, however, hadobvioully an oecono- mical obje& in view, when it limited the number of jurors to . lixty, as a compenfation was originally allowed for their atten- dance, though it has lince been repealed; 2 Vol. Dull. Edit. p. 268; and the praéliee of the Supreme Court, it is believed, changed in confequeuee of the repe:rL But even taking the a€l: of Pmr56=lv4mi•e as an indifpenfable rule, it is fubliantially complied with. '1`he acl: of Congrgli introduced a particular regulation for the trial of offenders, which required that twelve jurors {hould be taken from the county where the otlence is charged to have been committed; and this is done. '1`he a& of Pt·myj;lwuia aurhorifed lixty jurors to he fummoned; and in addition to the twelve from the p:op:r count y, the Marlhall Uu 2 has
�
