maritime cases, the mode of proceeding should be according to the usages of courts of Admiralty, the trial of maritime offences must have been according to the usage of Admiralty courts,(a) had not the Constitution and amendments otherwise provided:

"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed, but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may, by law, have directed."(b)

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger."(c)

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district where the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, to be confronted with the witnesses against him, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defence."(d)

§ 572. The practical operation of these provisions, has been to make the practice of the Admiralty, in criminal cases, the same as the practice of the courts of common law, in like cases. The cases are none the less cases of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, although, like criminal cases in the English Admiralty, they are tried before a jury, and, from the beginning, conducted after the manner of trials at common law, in criminal cases. The proper effect of those provisions is not, however, to adopt, in such cases the practice of the state courts, but the practice must be according to the usage of Admiralty courts, subject to the limitations of the Constitution, the amendments, and the acts of Congress.(e)

(a) Act of May 8th, 1792, § 2.

(c) 5th Amendment.

(e) Conk. Treat. 395.

(b) Const. art. 3, § 2.

(d) 6th Amendment.

573. The powers usually exercised by justices of the peace and other magistrates in the states, of issuing warrants for crimes, making preliminary examinations, and committing, are usually exercised by the United States' commissioners, by virtue of the act of August 23, 1842, which will be found in the Appendix.(a)

(<) 5 Stat. at Large, 516.

CHAPTER XXXVI.

Limitations.

574. There is no fixed rule of limitation of the time in which Admiralty suits shall be brought, except in the cases of criminal suits, and suits quasi criminal. Statutes of limitation are founded entirely on public policy, rather than on sound principle. Indulgence to a debtor, and delay in prosecuting him, would seem not to form any good reason why the creditor should lose his debt. The policy of all nations has, however, fixed limits to that indulgence, in certain cases-longer in one nation than another, and almost as various as the classes of cases. These limitations have usually been subject to exceptions, one of which is in favor of persons beyond sea, and all of which have their foundation in the inconvenience or impracticability of sooner enforcing the demand.

575. If the omission to enact any statute of limitations in civil cases of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, sprang from the peculiar character of the cases, and the pursuits of many of those employed in maritime commerce-a large portion of their time in foreign countries, on the seas, and beyond the seasurged by the strongest incentives of commercial necessity, as well as of public policy, to pursue their avocations without interruptions, and without being the masters of their own steps-it would not be the only instance in which the founders of the republic, and the framers of her first system of laws, silently manifested their remarkable forecast and practical wisdom. I cannot help thinking, that in such cases, the matter of limitations is best left as it is, to the discretion of the court, who can judge in view of all the circumstances, whether the demand be so stale as to be considered neglected and abandoned-availing themselves of that principle of limitation in the administration of every system of jurisprudence which is derived out of the nature of things, and which is admitted in the

universal maxim,-"vigilantibus non dormientibus subveniunt leges." This is the constant practice of courts of Admiralty. This discretion of the court is not mere caprice, nor will, nor arbitrary power. It is the sound legal discretion of cultivated reason, in which the circumstances of the parties and of the property, and of the transaction-the wants and convenience of commerce, and the demands of public policy-and, most especially, the analogies of the local laws of limitation, are fully to be considered and carefully weighed.(a)

576. In criminal and penal cases, and cases of forfeiture, there are limitations fixed by the acts of Congress. No person shall be tried for treason, or other capital offence, wilful murder and forgery excepted, unless the indictment for the same be found by a grand jury within three years next after the commission of the offence; nor shall any person be prosecuted, tried, or punished for any offence, not capital, unless the indictment or information for the same be found or instituted within two years from the time of committing the offence; this does not, however, extend to persons fleeing from justice.(b)

577. For a large number of offences against the revenue laws, ships and vessels and other property are specifically forfeited, and the forfeiture is enforced by proceedings in rem in Admiralty. By the custom house act of March 2, 1799, 89, prosecutions for those forfeitures, as well as actions against persons for violations of that act, are limited to three years next after the penalty or forfeiture was incurred; but by the act of March 26, 1804, § 3, the limitations in such cases, was extended to five years. The same period of limitations applies to prosecutions for the slave trade by the 9th section of the act of April 20, 1818.

(a) 2 Gall. 477. 3 Mas. 91. 5 C. Rob. 102. 2 Levin. 207, 212koa 180. 3 id. 235. 6 id. 46. 1 Dod. 463. 8 Sumn. 276. 1 Yo. & Col. 455. & Clark & Fin. 121. 2 Dod. 338. Edw. Jur. 149. Stat. 4 Anne, c. 16. 3 Hag. 117, 419

Howard, 234.

(b) Crimes Act of April 30, 1790, § 31. 2 Cranch, 336. 1 Gal. 397.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED STATES.

The Jurisdiction and Practice in Admiralty and Maritime Cases.

578. It has been already stated, that the circuit courts have no original civil Admiralty jurisdiction. It has also been shown in what cases and how, original cases, in the District Court, may be transferred to the Circuit Court for original hearing. The Circuit Court has also, concurrently with the District, a large criminal jurisdiction in Admiralty cases. In all these cases, the practice in the Circuit Court, is like that in the District Court, in like cases, and is set forth in the preceding sections of this work, and to them the reader is referred. The Admiralty rules of the Supreme Court, apply to the Circuit as well as the District Court. The practice of the Circuit Court, in cases of appeal, however, should be stated.(a)

579. Appeals.-From all final decrees in a District Court an appeal, when the matter in dispute, exclusive of costs, shall exceed the sum or value of fifty dollars, is allowed to the Circuit Court next to be holden in the District.

The appeal can be taken only to a final decree. An interlocutory decree-an incidental decree-a decree in a matter of discretion, cannot be appealed from. The appeal from the final decree, however, brings up for review all the orders, decrees, and proceedings in the cause.(b)

580. It is of great importance to the due administration of justice, that causes should not be carried up in fragments, upon

(a) Ante, §§ 320 to 323.

(b) Act of March 3, 1803. 6 Cranch, 206. 7 id. 152. 9 Wheat. 576. 11 id. 280. 2 How. 238.