288 WRIGHT— POWER TO MEET RESPONSIBILITIES. 



ruled.^^ However, though federal courts cannot assume jurisdic- 

 tion either under common law or under such broad grants as that 

 here in question or it may be added under treaty, they may exer- 

 cise criminal jurisdiction over otTenses not specified by statute where 

 jurisdiction has been expressly given them by act of Congress. Thus 

 they may have jurisdiction because of the nature of the parties, in 

 which case federal courts apply the criminal law of the state in 

 which they sit.^^ 



130. Federal Courts Have No Criminal Jurisdiction from Treaties 

 Alone. 

 The federal courts have refused to exercise jurisdiction over 

 crimes defined by treaty until Congress has acted. They have fol- 

 lowed the same opinion with reference to extradition. In the case 

 of the British Prisoners,^* although asserting that where extradi- 

 tion is required by " the supreme law of a treaty, the executive need 

 not wait . . . for acts of Congress to direct such duties to be done 

 and how," Justice Woodbury said for the circuit court : 



"If a treaty stipulated for some act to be done, entirely judicial ... it 

 could hardly be done without the aid or preliminary direction of some act of 

 Congress prescribing the court to do it and the form." 



At present the law is clear. The jurisdiction of federal courts, 

 with exception of the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court de- 

 fined by the Constitution itself, is confined to that which Congress 

 has expressly conferred and the only offenses cognizable are those 

 defined by acts of Congress, or, in case jurisdiction exists because 

 of the nature of the parties, those defined by the law of the state 

 in which the court is sitting. It may be noted that extraterritorial 

 courts, authorized by treaty and established by act of Congress, 



92 U. S. V. Coolidge, Fed. Cas. 14857, and ibid., i Wheat. 415 (1816). 



93 U. S. V. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297, Fed. Cas. No. 6122; Moore, 5 : 65 ; Tenn. 

 V. Davis, 100 U. S. 257; Duponceau, op. cit., p. 34; Willoughby, op. cit., p. 

 1020. In the case of an indictment against the Russian consul Kosloff in 1815 

 the Pennsylvania court refused jurisdiction (Comm. v. Kosloff, 5 Serg. and 

 RawIe S4S), and no action' was begun in the federal courts, although by 

 statute they then had exclusive jurisdiction in cases against consuls. Du- 

 ponceau. op. cit., p. 36; Moore, Digest 5: 66. 



9* The British Prisoners, i Wood, and M. 66. 



