Cntcvrr Coeur, Pwy$.’i.·¤ni¤ Diftriét. gdy able- under`the authority of the United S/nm-, except where rygtir the a& otherwife provides, or the laws of the Unilrd Starr: {hall yy`; otherwife direc], and concurrent jurifdi&ion with the Diliriét Courts of the crimes and offences oognizable therein." Unlefs, therefore, there is any law giving cognizance to the Diltrift Court, this fcftion gives it exclulively to the Circuit Court. But even if the Di{lri& Court has cognizance, either the pre- fent caufe of forfeiture mult be taken out of the denomination of crimes and olfences, or by the cxprefs words of the aét, the Circuit Court is velted with a concurrent jurifdiéiion; and the exclulive words can only be rendered operative by reitriiting . them to the State Courts. Ruwlc, (attomey for the diltridt) {tatcd the general opinion and uniform praétice, to be in favor of the exclulive jurifdic- tion of the Ditlriét Court; and, he contended, that a fair and ra- tional analylis of the law, would admit of no other eonltruc- tion. it has been decided here as well as in England, that pro- ceedings of this nature are civil fuits. Cmp. got. United Sider, o. Le IGngeur*; and the words of the Judicial aft are fo firongly excluiive, in giving juriliiiéiion to the Diiiriét Court, that they cannot be mifunderftood or difrcgarded. Nor does the contradiction fuggclted really exiit ; for, if the obvious dilltinétion between profecutions againflt perfons for crimes, and proceedings to recover a forfeiture, is adverted to, there will be ‘ noinconliliencyt in referring the concurrent jurifdiétion of the Circuit Court to cafes of the former defeription, while the ex- clulive original juriiiiétion of the Diltriéh Court is afferted, in ‘ cafes of the latter defcription. Pvrtatts, _7ry’}icz:—'I`l1e language of the aft of Congrefs is fo forcible, to veil an exciulive jurifdiétion in the Diiirié} Court, that the imprcilion cn my mind can never be obviated, but by fomething equally authoritative, direct, and concluiive. The argument which has been oppofed to this language, mere- ly eoniiits of {light analogies, doubtful implications, and un- hxtisfaéto deduélicns, froma comparative view of ditierent feétions oliythc law. To take jnrifditition, however, in any cate, the court ought to be clearly of opinion, that the coniiillzution and the law intended to give it; but here, the words will hardly admit a doubt upon the intention of the legillature, to exclude the jurifdiction of the Circuit Court; and, tltercfore, we can have no pretence whatever to fullain the prefent information, Ihavenniformly atlixed this conllruction to the law. In · the cafe of the Unite}! Stain, ·u. Guinea, for being concerned in illegally fitting out a French privatcer, the pany was arrellcd, and
- At the rcqntit of the Court, I produced my notes of this caf: on
the argc mem.
�
