{"character_count": 7554, "word_count": 1336, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9577000141143799], "ccnet_perplexity": [2007.0], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ihe Constitution of Louisiana" One of the strcng. est objections originally taken against the Consiiiu-

 on of the United States, was the want of an ex- press provision securing the right of trial by Juy in civil cases. As the Constitution adopt ed, this right was secured by the 7ih Amendmentof the Constitution proposed by Congress; and which received an assent of the people generally 10 establish it's importance fundamental guarantee of the rights and liberties of he people. This amendment declares that in suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be Preserved; and no fact tried by jury shall be otherwise re-examinabe in any Court of the United States than according to the rules of the Common Law" At this time there States in tie Union, the basis of whose jurisprudence was not essentially that of the Common Law in its widest meaning; and probably no States ere cont, lated, in which it would not exist. The phrase Common Law" found in this clause, is used in conhadistbcton to Equity, and Admnalty and Maritime juris pl udence. The Constitution had declared in the third article,

 That the judicial power shall extend to all eases in Law and Equity arising under this Constitution, ,he Laws of the United States, and Treaties made or which shall be made under their authority" &c. and to all cases of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdc- tlon It is ell known that in civil causes in Courts of Equity and Admiralty, juries do not intervene, and that Courts of Equity the trial by jury ony in extraordinary cases, 10 inform the conscience of the Court. When, therefore, find that the amend- ment requires that the right of trial by Jury shall be- preserved in suits at Common Law, inc natural con- cuson is that this distDOdon was present 10 the minds of the fiamers rf Inc amendment. By Com-- mon Law they meant what the Constitution de- nominated in inc third article "Law;'' not merely suits which the Common Law recognised among it's eia and settled proceedings, but suits in which legal fgh's were to be ascertained and determined, in coh'fadisfsction to those where equitable rights alohe were rec eensed, and equitable remedies auininisered; orwhere, as in the Admiralty mix lure oi fnblIc Law, and oi Maritime Law and Equi- was oiten found Tn ihe same suit. Probably there were lew, Ii any, States in the Union in which soille new lesa remedies differing from the old common Law forms were not in use; but in which, however, the trial by Jury intervened and the gene rai regulations Tn other respects were according to me course of the Common Law, Proceedings in cases Of Partition, and of foreign and domestic at- 'achment mlght be cited as examples variously adopted and modifed) In just sense, the amend ment then may well be construed embrace oHsuits which not of Eguify and Admiyaity jurisdiction ahaertr may be the peculiar form srhich they may as- Sumc to settle legal rights, and Congress seems to- have acted with reference to this exposition in the Judiciary Act of 17e9, ch. 20, (which was cotempo- raneous with the proposal of this amendment } for in the ninth section it Is provided, that the trial of issues in facts in the District Courts all cases except civil causes of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, shall be by Jury, and in the 18th section it is pro- vded, that " the trial of issues in fact in the Circuit Courts shall in all suits, except those of Equity and of Admiralty and of Maritime jurisdiction, be by jury;' and again in the thirteenth section it is pro- vided that the trial of issues in fact in the Supreme Court in all actions at Law against citizens of the United Sates, shall be by jury" "The true sgnif- cation of the words suits at Common Law, is thus denitivey settled, and embrace all suits which do not fall within the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Fqui ty and Admiralty" The amendment to the Consti- tuition providing for trial by jury in such cases, was passed in March, 17e9, and in September of the same year, inc judiciary act under which this Court holds its authority passed by Congress- only five months after the Constitution was amended on this point. We will now examine the Judiciary Act, and whether it does not recognise the 7th Arti- ce of the amendments to the Constitution The ninth section of the judiciary Act establishes the ju rsdiction of this Court and after vesting authority in this Court certain matters relating to the revenue and the Admiralty, holds this language.

 ana snaII also iIuye cug uzunoo concurrent as last mentioned, of aH suits at Common Laso, arhere the United Stdtes sue, and the matter in dispute amounts exclusively of costs, to the value of one hun dred dollars, and concludes in the following words:

 and the t,id of issues m tact in the District Courts m aH causes except ciuil cduses cf Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction shall be byjury." Here we the requsition of the Constitution complied wtb and the trials of issues in fact in all causes, express

 y enjoined the District Court, in all causes, that is to say in all suits at Common Law where the Uni ted States sue To show c0ncusvely that such cases as the present were intended to be embraced by the words suits at Common Law" where the

 

 who the suitors in this Court. It will be found that with the solitary exception of suits against Consuls Vice Consuls, there other suitors in this Court in Civil cases (not of Admiraty urs diction) than the United States. What suits then, were intended by the words suits at Common Law, where the United States sue?" The answer must be- all suits brought by the Government on Duty or other Bonds. Can 1t mean any other suits It can not for this plain and obvious reason, that the only suitOrs in this Court, the only plaintiffs, are the Uni ted States. It is a kind of Exchequer Court, in which the debts due to the Government are recover ed Neither aliens nor citizens can sue here This Court has jurisdiction in any other cause. When the 9th Sec. therefore, winch establishes this Court declares that it shall have cognzance cf au suits at la,o, srhere the United States sue, it must in tend to embrace cases like the present, it can mean nothing. If, then, it meant to comprehend these cases how they to be tred Being suits at Common Law they must be governed by the amend ment to the Constitution, which directs such suits to be tried by jury. This seems to me to be an inc vItable conclusion. My mind has been much assist ed too, in forming an opinion on this question, by adverling to act of Congress passed on Sd March 1797. By this law, it is declared "that where suits shall be instituted against any person persons n1 debed to the United States, aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the Court where the same may be pend1 ing grant uds ement at the return term, upon mol ton, unless the Defendant shall, in open Court thek United States Attorney being presenD make oath or < affirmation, that he is equtably entitled to credits which had been, previous to the commencement of the suit, submitted to the consideration of the ace counting officers of the Treasury, and rejected spe cifying each particular claim rejected in the afi< davt and that he cannot then come safely to trlal.

 Oath or affirmation to this effect being made, sub-' scrbed and filed, 1.-the Court be thereupon satisied a continuance, until the next succeeding term may be granted but not otherwise, unless as provided in the preceding section." It will be seen, by comparison of this clausot