might be committed against the general laws of the United States. In the various territories it had been the custom-and indeed we may say it was required by the several territorial organic acts that the same grand jury that sat to investigate offenses against the laws of the territory could not investigate offenses committed against the general criminal statutes of the United States, and so in these territorial jurisdictions two grand juries had been commonly required. It was to avoid this necessity that section 10 provided for a single grand jury.

The next section of our statute which bears upon the question now being considered is section 13, p. 2, Act 1899, which reads as follows:

"That the grand juries have power and it is their duty to inquire into all crimes committed or triable within the jurisdiction of the court and present them to the court either by presentment or indictment, as provided by this act."

Sections 21, 22, and 23 of the act of 1899 may also be considered in connection with the matter now before the court.

On the 6th of June, 1900, the legislation contemplated by the act of 1899 became law, and at that time the Congress of the United States enacted a Political Code and a Code of Civil Procedure for the district. The Political Code provides that the territory ceded by Russia under the treaty of March 30, 1867, and known as Alaska, shall constitute a civil and judicial district, the government of which shall be organized and administered as thereinafter provided. Section 4 of the Political Code provides as follows:

"There is hereby established a district court for the district, which shall be a court of general jurisdiction in civil, criminal, equity and admiralty causes, and three district judges shall be appointed for the district who shall, during their terms of office, reside in the division of the district to which they may respectively be assigned by the President. The court shall consist of three divisions. The judge designated to preside over division one shall during the term of his office reside at Juneau," etc.

Section 5 provides:

"The jurisdiction of each division of the court shall extend over the district of Alaska, but the court in which the action is pending may, on motion, change the place of trial in any action, civil or criminal, from one place to another place in the same division, or to a designated place in another division, in either of the following cases:

"(4) By the court on its own motion when, considering available means of travel, it appears that the defendant will be put to unnecessary expense and inconvenience if summoned to defend in the place or division in which the action has been commenced. * * * In any criminal prosecution the court shall change the place of trial where it appears to the satisfaction of the court that the defendant will not be prejudiced thereby, and that the United States will be put to unnecessary expense in such criminal prosecution if the transfer is not made."

By this act a clerk of court is provided for each division, who shall reside during their respective terms of office at the place designated as the residence of the judge of the division of the court to which each of the judges of the district court shall be assigned. Section 9 provides for the appointment. of a United States marshal for each division of the district, and the act also provides for the appointment of a district. attorney for each division, the residence of the marshal and district attorney of each division to follow the residence of the judge of the division as designated by the President. would seem from the act that the marshal and district attorney may perform their duties only within the exterior limits or boundaries of the division to which appointed, and their authority goes no further than this.

It

Under the letter of the statutes of the district, nothing apparently can be found to circumscribe the jurisdiction of either of the divisions of the district court. "The jurisdiction of each division of the court shall extend over the district of Alaska.” It will further be noted that by the terms of section 13 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following declaration is very positive in its terms:

2 A.R.-7

"That the grand juries have power, and it is their duty, to inquire into all crimes committed or triable within the jurisdiction of the court, and present them to the court either by presentment or indictment."

If the jurisdiction of each division of the court shall extend over the district of Alaska, it is argued with great force, and the conclusion seems upon the face of the statute almost inevitable, that the power of the grand jury to inquire is as broad as the jurisdiction of the court.

And because of these several provisions of the statute, it becomes necessary to construe these, and to reach some general conclusion as to what is meant by the Congress of the United States in their enactment. What was the intention of Congress as to the power of a grand jury to investigate offenses outside of the division of the district within which such grand jury is called?

In considering a question of this character, it is well to review the origin of grand juries and the methods by which they were secured, and in that connection the limitations placed upon their investigations. The methods of obtaining both grand and petit juries in the early history of jury trials was much the same as now, and "according to the policy of the ancient law," says Blackstone, "the jury was to come de vicinete from the neighborhood of the ville or the place where the cause of action was laid in the declaration, and therefore some of the jury were obliged to be returned from the one hundred in which the ville lay, and if none were returned the array might be challenged 'for defects of the hundreds.' The Gothic jury or nembda was also collected out of every quarter of the country, for living in the neighborhood they were properly the very country or pais to which both parties had appealed, and were supposed to know beforehand the character of the parties and witnesses, and therefore they better knew what credit to give to the facts alleged in evidence." Cooley's Black. (3d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 359.

Under the various changes and mutations of the law of England, a grand jury, whose duty it was to present indictments, came from the county instead of from the ville, which was, perhaps, a smaller portion of the country.

"To this end, the sheriff of every county is bound to return to every session of the peace and every commission of oyer and terminer and of general gaol delivery twenty-four good and lawful men of the county, some out of every hundred, to inquire, present, do, and execute all things which on the part of our Lord the King shall then and there be commanded them." (Id. 301.)

It was also apparently fixed by law as to the number that should be summoned to serve upon a grand jury. “As many as appear upon this panel are sworn upon the grand jury to the amount of twelve at the least and not more than twentythree, that twelve may be a majority." Blackstone further tells us that the jury so formed we find exactly described as early as the laws of King Ethelreid. During the reign of King Richard I the process of selecting grand juries was somewhat changed. Four knights were taken from the county at large, who chose two or more out of every hundred. Again, at this early day, the grand jury was sworn to inquire only for the body of the county, and therefore could not inquire of a fact done out of that county for which they were sworn, unless particularly enabled so to do by an act of Parliament. (Id. 302.)

The manner of selecting grand juries in all the states of the Union, as well as in the territories, has been much the same as the ancient method described in Blackstone. Under the laws of the United States, juries may be called according to the practice in state courts, and according to such rules as are established for the district and circuit courts of the United States. Section 808 of chapter 15 of the judiciary act (Rev. St. U. S. [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 626]), fixes the number of grand jurors at not less than 16 nor more than 23 persons.

If less than 16 of those summoned attend the court, the court shall order the marshal to summon, either immediately or at a day fixed, from the body of the district, and not from bystanders, a sufficient number of persons to complete the grand jury; indicating that the jurors shall come from the body of the district. Again, it is provided in section 812 of the same act: "No person shall be summoned as a juror in any district or circuit court more than once in two years," and if a juror is called who has so served, it is ground for challenge.

Section 802 provides:

"The jurors shall be returned from such parts of the district from time to time as the court may direct, so as to be most favorable to an impartial trial and so as not to incur an unnecessary expense or unduly to burden the citizens of any part of the district with such services."

Under the United States statutes a grand jury may be called for both the district and circuit courts to serve for each. But in the state of New York we find more than one district, and yet the circuit court which includes New York has jurisdiction, not only as broad as the entire state, but covering other states as well. In the Ninth Circuit we find California, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, and Nevada included in the circuit, and each state constitutes a district. Of course, in the state of New York the jurisdiction of the circuit court is not restricted to the southern or northern districts of the state, but covers both; yet it is said that the power of the grand jury is co-extensive with and limited by the criminal jurisdiction of the court of which they are a constituent part. Where they transcend such powers, they are null.

Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. Hill, Fed. Cas. No. 15,364, said:

"Grand juries are accessories to the criminal jurisdiction of the court, and they have power to act and are bound to act so far as they can aid the jurisdiction. Thus far the power is implied, and is as legitimate as if expressly given."