OF THE VII. REPORT CASE OF THE UNITED STATES v. COOLIDGE, AS DECIDED ON APPEAL IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY TERM, 1816. (1 Wheaton, 415.) (CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.) THE UNITED STATES v. COOLIDGE, et al. Quare, whether the Courts of the United States have jurisdiction of offences at common law against the United States? THIS was an indictment in the Circuit Court of the district of Massachusetts, against the defendants, for forcibly rescuing a prize, which had been captured and taken possession of by two American privateers. The captured vessel was on her way, under the direction of a prize master and crew, to the port of Salem for adjudication. The indictment laid the offence as committed upon the high seas. The question made was, whether the Circuit Court had jurisdiction over common law offences against the United States? on which the Judges of that Court were divided in opinion. The Attorney General stated that he had given to this case an anxious attention; as much so, he hoped, as his public duty, under whatever view of it, rendered necessary. That he had also examined the opinion of the Court, delivered at February term, 1813, in the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin. That considering the point as decided in that case, whether with, or without, argument, on the part of those who had preceded him as the representative of the government in this Court, he desired respectfully to state, without saying more, that it was not his intention to argue it now. Story, J. I do not take the question to be settled by that case. Johnson, J. I consider it to be settled by the authority of that case. Washington, J. Whenever counsel can be found ready to argue it, I shall devest myself of all prejudice arising from that case. Livingston, J. I am disposed to hear an argument on the point. This case was brought up for that purpose, but until the question is re-argued, the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin must be taken as law. Johnson, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. Upon the question now before the Court a difference of opinion has existed, and still exists, among the members of the Court. We should, therefore, have been willing to have heard the question discussed upon solemn argument. But the Attorney General has declined to argue the cause; and no counsel appears for the defendant. Under these circumstances the Court would not choose to review their former decision in the case of the United States v. Hudson and Goodwin, or draw it into doubt. They will, therefore, certify an opinion to the Circuit Court in conformity with that decision. Certificate for the defendant. VIII. (EXTRACT.) The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. KOSLOFF. In the Court of Oyer and Terminer of the city and county of Philadelphia, January session, 1816. (5 Serg. & Rawle, 545.) Tilghman, C. J. The grand inquest for the city and county of Philadelphia, having preferred a bill of indictment against Nicholas Kosloff, Consul General of his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia, a motion has been. made to quash the indictment for want of jurisdiction in this Court. Two causes are assigned for our want of Jurisdiction. 1. That the privilege of immunity from criminal prosecutions, is conferred on consuls by the law of nations. 2. That by the Constitution of the United States, exclusive jurisdiction in all cases affecting consuls is vested in the Courts of the United States. Mr. C. J. Tilghman decided the first question in the negative; but his argument on this point not relating to the matters treated of in this work, it is here omitted. On the second question, the Chief Justice proceeded to deliver his opinion as follows. 2. A more difficult question remains to be consideredIs the jurisdiction of this Court taken away, by the Constitution and laws of the United States ? Before I go into an examination of the Constitution and laws, it may not be improper to say a word or two, respecting the subject in which this question arises. An agent of a foreign government, accused of a crime committed in the State of Pennsylvania, claims, not an exemption from trial, but the right K k of being tried by a Court of the United States. His public relations are, not with the State of Pennsylvania, but with the government of the United States: and if the Emperor of Russia should suppose that he had cause to complain of our treatment of his officer, he must address himself, not to the Governor of Pennsylvania, but to the President of the United States. But even where there was a cause of complaint, cases may be easily supposed, in which the President might think it more conducive to the peace of the nation, to send a foreign agent out of the country, to be punished by his own Sovereign, than to inflict punishment on him, by our own laws, here. These considerations are so manifest, that when the people of the United States were about to form a federal government, through which alone they were to maintain an intercourse with foreign nations, it would have seemed a want of common prudence, not to commit to that government the management of all affairs respecting the public agents of those nations. Let us now advert to the instrument of our Federal Union, and we shall soon perceive, that the statesmen who framed it, were perfectly aware of the importance of placing all foreign public agents, Consuls included, under the complete superintendance of the Federal Government. It was through the judicial power, that those persons could principally be affected. Accordingly we find it provided, by the 2d sect. of the Sd article of the Constitution, that the judicial power shall extend "to all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers, and Consuls." Words more comprehensive cannot be devised. They include suits of every kind, civil and criminal. This is not denied by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, nor, as I understand, is it denied, that by virtue of this provision, Congress had a right to declare by law, that in no case, civil or criminal, should a State Court have jurisdiction over a Consul. But it is contended, that until Congress does by law declare so, the State Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the Courts of the United |