the United States. If he has committed an offense
against their laws, their tribunals alone can punish
him. If he is wrongfully imprisoned, their judicial
tribunals can release him and afford him redress. And
although, as we have said, it is the duty of the marshal,
or other person holding him, to make known, by a
proper return, the authority under which he detains
him, it is at the same time imperatively his duty to obey
the process of the United States, to hold the prisoner in
custody under it, and to refuse obedience to the man-
date or process of any other Government.
And con-
sequently it is his duty not to take the prisoner, nor
suffer him to be taken, before a State judge or Court
upon a habeas corpus issued under State authority. No
State Judge or Court, after they are judicially informed
that the party is imprisoned under the authority of the
United States, has any right to interfere with him or
to require him to be brought before them. And if the
authority of a State, in the form of judicial process or
otherwise, should attempt to control the marshal or
other authorized officer or agent of the United States,
in any respect, in the custody of his prisoner, it would
be his duty to resist it, and to call to his aid any force
that might be necessary to maintain the authority of
law against illegal interference. No judicial process,
whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful
authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of
the Court or Judge by whom it is issued; and an attempt.
to enforce it beyond these boundaries is nothing less
than lawless violence.

115. The Original Jurisdiction of the District Courts Which is Exclusive of that of the States But Concurrent With That of the Supreme Court.-As already stated, section 233 of the Judicial Code gives the District Courts original jurisdiction over suits against consuls and vice-consuls, concurrent with that conferred by the Constitution upon the Supreme Court, but exclusive of that of the State Courts.

116. Suits Against Consuls and Vice-Consuls.—A suit against a consul or vice-consul cannot be safely brought elsewhere than in a Court of the United States. If sued in a

State Court the defendant may, at any time, in the course of the proceedings, raise the question of jurisdiction; and a new suit in a Federal Court may then be subject to the bar of the Statute of Limitations.

The privilege of being sued in the Courts of the United States and not in those of the States is not a personal one which may be waived by the defendant. It is an immunity of his government. He can not surrender it. A consul who has been sued in a State Court does not by going to trial therein on the merits waive a right to object to the jurisdiction. He may, in the Appellate Court, for the first time, set up his claim for exemption from suit in the State tribunals.1

117. Where a Consul is a Defendant, District Court Has Jurisdiction Irrespective of Citizenship or Status of His Co-defendants.-As we shall see, when the jurisdiction of the District Court depends upon diverse citizenship, every party on one side must be competent to sue, in the United States Court, every party on the other. Such is not the rule where one of the defendants is a consul or viceconsul. Then the District Court has jurisdiction in spite of the fact that if he were not joined with his co-defendants they could not be there sued.1

118. In Suits Against a Consul Amount in Controversy Immaterial.-Nor in such cases is the amount in controversy material. If the plaintiff claims that a consul owes him any sum, however small, any legal proceeding to coerce payment must be taken in a Court of the United States.

119. The Privilege is That of Foreign, Not American, Consuls.-Consuls and vice-consuls, as the words are used in the statute under consideration, mean the consular representatives of foreign governments. An American consul

'Davis vs. Packard, 7 Peters, 275; Bors vs. Preston, 111 U. S. 252. 1 Froment vs. Duclos, 30 Fed. 385.

whose station is abroad is not exempt from suits in the State Courts of this country.1

120. Federal Courts Have Exclusive Jurisdiction of Suits Against the United States.-Section 256 of the Judicial Code, which enumerates the cases in which jurisdiction, vested in the Courts of the United States, shall be exclusive of the Courts of the several States, does not mention suits against the United States. It was unnecessary to do so. The United States cannot be sued except by its own consent. It has consented to be sued under some circumstances, but only in its own Courts.

121. Jurisdiction of Court of Claims and of District Courts of Suits Upon Claims Against the United States. -The Judicial Code1 confers jurisdiction upon the Court of Claims over claims (1) founded upon the Constitution of the United States or any law of Congress, or upon any regulation of an executive department, or upon any contract, express or implied, with the Government of the United States, or for damages, liquidated or unliquidated, in cases not sounding in tort, in respect to which claims, the party would, if the United States were suable, be entitled to redress in a Court of law, equity or admiralty; (2) of disbursing officers for relief from responsibility; (3) of patentees whose inventions have without their consent been used by the United States.

Where the claim is of the first class above mentioned, and does not exceed $10,000, concurrent jurisdiction is conferred upon the District Court.2

122. Contractual Claims Against the Government, Jurisdiction Over Which is Withheld from the District Courts. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Claims has any jurisdiction to hear and determine claims growing out of the late Civil War, known as "war claims," nor may they reopen any claim which had been rejected or reported on adversely prior to the third day of March, 1887, by any Court, department or commission authorized to hear and

1 Milward vs. McSaul, 17 Fed. Cases, 425 (No. 9624). Section 145.

* Judicial Code, Sec. 24, Par. 20.

determine the same, nor may they hear or determine any claims for pensions. The District Court has no jurisdiction of cases brought to recover fees, salary or compensation for official services of officers of the United States. Formerly the District Court might entertain the last named class of suits, but by an Act passed on the 27th of June, 1898, it was provided that in future they should be cognizable in the Court of Claims only. From the Government's standpoint it is unwise to submit such claims to the determination of a Court of which the claimants may be officers.

123.

District Court Without Jurisdiction of Claims for the Collection of Which Other Machinery is Specially Provided. There are statutes which provide ways in which, under certain circumstances, claims against the Government for internal revenue taxes or customs duties paid under protest, may be recovered-in some instances by suit. against the collector of internal revenue or of customs, and in others by an appeal to the Board of General Appraisers, and from thence to the Customs Court.

Where by statute the Government has specifically provided a method of determining the validity of a claim and a way of collecting it, the claimant cannot seek redress in any other manner.1 This doctrine has its limitations. They have been clearly set forth by the Supreme Court.2

124. How Suit May Be Brought in the District Court Upon a Claim Against the United States.—The Act which gave concurrent jurisdiction to the District Court with the Court of Claims of contractual demands against the Government, is usually referred to as the Tucker Act.1 It requires the plaintiff to bring suit by petition under oath. He must cause a copy of it to be served upon the district attorney of the United States for the district wherein he sues.

He is required to send another copy by registered mail to the attorney general of the United States. He must make and file with the clerk of the Court an affidavit that such service has been made and such copy mailed.

125. District Court Must in Suits Upon Claims Against the United States File an Opinion as Well as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.-In this class of cases the Court must file a written opinion. In it there must be specific findings of fact and distinct statements of all conclusions of law involved in the case. If the suit be in equity or admiralty, the Court is directed to proceed according to its ordinary rules.1

126. Court Has Jurisdiction of All Claims by the Government Against the Claimant.-The District Court has jurisdiction of all set-offs, counter claims, claims for damages, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or other demands whatsoever on the part of the United States against any claimant who in such Court sues the Government.1

The right of set-off or counter claim given the United States by this statute is far broader than that which exists between private parties in any suit at law or in equity in the Courts of Maryland or of the United States within Maryland, and indeed is broader than any usually given by the set-off statutes of other States.

127. Suits Upon Claims Against the United States Are Tried Without a Jury.-All suits brought under the provisions of the paragraph' in question are tried by the Court without a jury.

The Government may not be sued without its own consent. If it consents to be sued at all it has the right to say in what way the trial shall be conducted. The claimant is deprived of no constitutional privilege when Congress says "we will

'Sec. 7, 24 Stat. 506.

' March 3, 1863, 12 Stat. 765.

Judicial Code, sec. 24, par. 20.