should not exercise all the jurisdiction of the other, and why a merger of the two should not tend to simplify court procedure. Congress took up the question in the winter of 1910-11 and devoted a large amount of time to its consideration. A bill, fathered by Representative Moon of Pennsylvania, abolishing the Circuit Court and enlarging the jurisdiction of the District Court was passed on the third of March, 1911. The act went into effect on the first of January, 1912.

The history of the Circuit Court is not without interest as a chapter in the history of the nation. It was little more than a name at first, though of very serious concern to the Supreme Court justices, requiring the latter, as Justice Iredell put it, to lead the life of a post-boy. In the Act of February 13, 1801, the number of associate justices of the Supreme Court was reduced to four and the justices relieved from circuit work. Six new circuits were created, each, except the sixth circuit in Kentucky and Tennessee, with a chief justice and two assistant judges, the total judges thus appointed being sixteen. They were called derisively the "midnight judges" because John Adams appointed them at nearly the last hour of his administration. The act was soon repealed at the instance of President Jefferson,' but a new act was passed the following year creating six circuits and assigning a justice of the Supreme Court permanently to each after restoring the number of associate justices to five. The judicial system as thus established continued until the close of Andrew Johnson's administration except that the number of associate justices of the Supreme Court was increased to six in 1807, to seven in 1837 and to eight in 1863.

There have been many cases of national interest in the Circuit Courts, more particularly in the latter years of their existence. Yet the early years, too, were of interest. It was in the Circuit Court of Virginia sitting in Richmond that Aaron Burr, at one time vice president of the United States and a United States Senator from New York, was placed on trial for treason in May, 1807. Chief Justice Marshall and 2 Ibid.

1 A History of the American Bar, Charles Warren.

District Judge Griffin held the court. Brilliant and numerous counsel appeared for both the defence and prosecution. Of the former there were Edmund Randolph and Charles Lee, both formerly Attorney-General of the United States. Of the latter were Cæsar A. Rodney, Attorney-General of the United States; George Hay, a son-in-law of President Monroe, and William Wirt, then young but who subsequently attained great distinction in his profession. He became Attorney-General of the United States in 1817. Burr himself directed his defense. The trial lasted for five months. Burr was acquitted much to the disgust of Jefferson and his followers. The acquittal was generally attributed to Chief Justice Marshall's charge to the jury in which he enunciated a definition of treason in the cold letter of the law and free from all political considerations.1 Jefferson could not refrain from writing with more vigor than insight:

The scenes which have been enacted at Richmond are such as have never before been exhibited in any country where all regard to public character has not yet been thrown off. They are equivalent to a proclamation of impunity to every traitorous combination which may be found to destroy the Union."

Many years later another treason case furnished as much excited interest as the Burr trial. That was the case of Jefferson Davis, the vanquished president of the Confederate States. Davis was captured while attempting to reach the Florida coast with a view to escape from the country. He was imprisoned in Fortress Monroe. Not only had Davis been the civil head of the rebellious States, but, it was strongly suspected for a time, that he had been implicated in the Booth conspiracy which culminated in the assassination of Lincoln. An indictment for treason was found against him but he was never brought to trial and was subsequently released from all charges by President Johnson's general amnesty. Prior to that he had been enlarged on heavy bail. One of his bondsmen was Horace Greely.

1A History of the American Bar, Charles Warren.

'Jefferson to Wilkinson, Sept. 20, 1807, Writings of Jefferson, Vol. IX.

In more recent years, particularly in the New York District, the Circuit Court has had cognizance of many cases of national importance. There was the eighty cent gas case, the American Tobacco Company case, the American Sugar Refining Company cases, civil and criminal,-the numerous smuggling and undervaluation cases, and others. There were, too, in other districts the Standard Oil Company case, the United States Steel Corporation case, the Railroad Rebate cases, the Northern Securities and Income Tax cases, etc.

CHAPTER VI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

In the Federal judiciary system the District Courts are the only tribunals of general original jurisdiction with the exception of those special courts which have a limited original cognizance such as the Commerce Court, the Court of Claims, certain territorial and colonial courts, the tribunals of the District of Columbia and of course the Supreme Court in the exercise of original jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution. As in the case of the Supreme Court and the Circuit Courts, the District Courts were established by the Judiciary Act of 1789. There were originally only thirteen districts, coinciding with the thirteen original States. One judge was appointed for each district. Now there are seventy-eight districts and provision for eighty-nine district judges (1912). Except in California, Alabama, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey and New York, each district has one district judge. The Southern District of New York, which includes New York City except Brooklyn, Richmond and Queens boroughs, has four district judges; and the Northern District of California, the Northern District of Illinois (embracing Chicago), the District of Minnesota, the District of Nebraska, the Eastern and Western Districts of Pennsylvania and the Western District of Washington have two judges each. At present the District of Maryland has two judges but the Act of March 3, 1911, abolishing the Circuit Courts and enlarging the jurisdiction of the District Courts, provides that whenever a vacancy occurs there in the judgeship, senior in commission, it shall not be filled. Alabama has only one judge to do the work in its two districts.

The salary of a district judge is $6,000 per annum payable in monthly installments. The judge appoints a clerk of the

court unless the law provides otherwise and the clerk in turn appoints his deputies subject to the judge's approval. A crier of the court is also appointed though in most cases one or other of the deputy clerks acts in that capacity. The terms of court are largely regulated by the judge himself as it is recognized that he is in the best position to gauge the needs of his district. If a district judge is unable to hold a term of court from any cause, that fact is certified to a circuit judge of the circuit of which the district is a part, or in the absence of the circuit judges, to the associate justice of the Supreme Court who may be assigned to that circuit, whereupon the circuit judge or the associate justice, as the case may be, holds the District Court. The work of a district judge is not necessarily confined to his own district. A circuit judge or the associate justice may in case of need assign him to hold court in another district of the same circuit. Nor is the work of a district judge necessarily restricted to the districts of the circuit in which his own district is situated. If the work of a District Court in another circuit should become congested the chief justice of the Supreme Court may assign a district judge to assist the regular judge. Such a contingency is rare, however. It will thus be seen that the duties of the district judges and the circuit judges are not in all cases strictly distinctive since either may sit in the other's courts under the conditions that have been remarked. There is nevertheless a clearer distinction in their functions and duties than existed prior to the abolition of the Circuit Courts. Before that event a district judge could sit in the Circuit Court and even in the Circuit Court of Appeals, but a circuit judge could not sit in the District Court.

As Courts of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and as Courts of Equity, the District Courts are deemed to be always open for the filing of any pleading, for the issuing and returning mesne and final process, and for making and directing all interlocutory motions, orders, rules and other proceedings preparatory to the hearing, upon their merits, of all pending causes. Any district judge, says the Act of March 3, 1911, may, upon reasonable notice to the parties,