WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 287 



Jurisdiction of crimes defined only by international law was also 

 asserted in the case of United States v. Ravara (1793) in which 

 the Genoese consul was indicted for sending threatening letters to 

 the British minister.^^ This act was considered in violation of the 

 diplomatic protection guaranteed to foreign ministers and hence a 

 breach of the law of nations. Although the accused was found 

 guilty, he was ultimately released on giving up his exequatur. In 

 this case, however, international law was appealed to merely for a 

 definition of the crime, since the circuit court had been given juris- 

 diction of cases against Consuls by act of Congress.'"' 



129. Federal Courts Have No Common Law Jurisdiction. 



Soon after, however, in United States z'. Worrall (1798), the 

 criminal jurisdiction of the federal coui"ts was said to rest on stat- 

 ute alone and this opinion was repeated in the Supreme Court in 

 Ex parte Bollman (1807) and United States v. Hudson (1812).^^ 

 Four years later the question was raised in a slightly different form 

 in United States z'. Coolidge (1816). In the circuit court Justice 

 Story had sustained an indictment for the forcible rescue by two 

 American privateers of a prize on its way to Salem under a prize 

 master, although no such crime was specifically defined by statute. 

 Reasoning from the iith section of the judiciary act which gave 

 federal circuit courts " exclusive cognizance of crimes cognizable 

 under authority of the United States," he said : 



"The jurisdiction is not as has sometimes been supposed in argument 

 over all crimes and offenses especially created and defined by statute. It is 

 of all crimes and offenses ' cognizable under the authority of the United 

 States,' that is, of all crimes and offenses to which, by the Constitution of 

 the United States, the judicial power extends. The jurisdiction could not, 

 therefore, have been given in more broad and comprehensive terms." 



Story's opinion, however, was not supported by his brother justice 

 on circuit and on certification to the supreme court he was over- 



^9 U. S. V. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; Fed. Cas. No. 6122; Moore, Digest, 5: 65. 



'"' Infra, note 93. 



»iU. S. V. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384; Ex parte Bollman. 4 Cranch 75; U. S. v. 

 Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; Willoughby, op. cit., p. 1031 ; J. B. Moore, Four Phases 

 of American Diplomacy, 1912, p. 64; Wharton, Criminal Law, i, sec. 254. 



