Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/138/157/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:12:07+00:00

Document:
By the Act of March 1, 1889, 25 Stat. 783, c. 333, "to establish a United States court in the Indian Territory, and for other purposes," the strip of public land lying south of Kansas and Colorado, and between the one hundredth and the one hundred and third meridians, and known as No Man's Land, was brought within the jurisdiction of the court for the Indian Territory so established, and was attached for limited judicial purposes to the Eastern District of Texas.
The history of and the legislation concerning the Indian Territory considered and reviewed.
By the Act of March 1, 1889, 25 Stat. 783, c. 333, the intention of Congress to confer upon the Circuit Court of the United States in the Eastern District of Texas power to try defendants for the offense of murder committed before its passage, where no prosecution had been commenced, was so clearly expressed as to take it out of the well settled rule that a statute should not be interpreted to have a retroactive operation where vested rights are injuriously affected by it, and it must be construed as operating retroactively.
The provision in Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States as to crimes "not committed within any state" that "the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed" imposes no restriction as to the place of trial except that the trial cannot occur until Congress designates the place, and may occur at any place which shall have been designated by Congress previous to the trial, and it is not infringed by the provision in the Act of March 1, 1889, 25 Stat. 783, c. 333, conferring jurisdiction upon the Circuit Court in the Eastern District of Texas to try defendants for the offense of murder committed before its passage.
The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the trial in criminal prosecutions by a jury "of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law," has reference only to offenses against the United States committed within a state, and is not infringed by the Act of March 1, 1889, 25 Stat. 783, c. 333.
the time the offense was committed, is not repugnant to Art. I, Sec. 9 of the Constitution of the United States as an ex post facto law, since an ex post facto law does not involve, in any of its definitions, a change of the place of trial of an alleged offense after its commission.
The Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Texas, held at Paris, in that district at the October Term, in 1589, had jurisdiction of an indictment for murder charged to have been committed in the country known as "No Man's Land" July 25, 1888.
The Attorney General having by his brief confessed, as it was his duty to do, that there was error in an important ruling in the court below entitling the defendants to a reversal, this Court reverses the judgment of that court and remands the case for a new trial.
There was, in July, 1888, a parallelogram of unorganized public land extending from the 100th meridian on the east to the 103d on the west, and from latitude 36°30' to latitude 37°. It was called "Public Land" upon the maps, but was commonly known as "No Man's Land." It was originally a part of the Republic of Texas, but, in the annexation, the parallel of 36°30' was made the northerly line of the state, presumably in order to apply the rule of the Missouri Compromise. Kansas and Colorado were subsequently organized in part out of this acquired territory north of 36°30', with their southern boundaries on the 37th parallel; the west line of the Indian Territory was fixed at the 100th meridian, and the eastern boundary of New Mexico was fixed on the 103d meridian, thus leaving this small strip of land not included in any organized state or Territory.
"A United States court is hereby established whose jurisdiction shall extend over the Indian Territory bounded as follows, to-wit: north by the State of Kansas, east by the States of Missouri and Arkansas, south by the State of Texas, and west by the State of Texas and the Territory of New Mexico."
It will be seen that the Indian Territory as thus defined on the west stretches to the border of New Mexico. To do this, its northern line must run upon a portion of the southern line of Colorado. But Colorado is not mentioned in the act; only Kansas.
provided that this part of the Indian Territory should "from and after the passage of this act be annexed to and constitute a part of the Eastern Judicial District of the Texas for judicial purposes." P. 786.
"prior to the passage of this act shall be tried and prosecuted and proceeded with, until finally disposed of, in the courts now having jurisdiction thereof, as if this act had not been passed."
"Eastern District of Texas, ss.: the grand jurors of the United States of America, duly elected, empanelled, tried, sworn and charged to inquire into and due presentment make of offenses against the laws of the United States of America in and for the district and circuit aforesaid, on their oath in said court present: that heretofore, to-wit, on the twenty-fifth day of July in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-eight, in that section of the country lying between Kansas and Texas bounded on the west by New Mexico and extending east to the hundredth meridian of longitude, commonly called the Neutral Strip or 'No Man's Land,' in the Indian Territory, the same being attached to and constituting part of the Eastern District of Texas for judicial purposes, and within the jurisdiction of this Court,"
etc. -- then charging the homicide.
government to read from the report of Attorney General Bradford in the hearing of the jury certain statements, then to ask the witness Bradford if he did not make the statements so read in said report, and in overruling the objections of plaintiffs in error thereto. And the court erred in admitting in evidence, over the objections of plaintiffs in error, certain parts of said report, as shown of record, because said witness Bradford was placed upon the witness stand by the government as a rebutting witness after counsel for government knew what he would testify to, and said witness had testified as such rebutting witness to the exact facts that the government's counsel had expected him to testify to, and because said witness had stated that plaintiff in error, C. E. Cook, did not state to him in language or in substance the statement contained in said report; because what witness stated in said report was not a report required of him in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of Kansas. Neither said report nor any part thereof was relevant or competent, and is hearsay, and ought not to have been admitted in evidence.
The plaintiffs in error, with others, were indicted in the court below at its October term, 1889, and were convicted and sentenced to suffer death for the crime of murder alleged to have been committed on the 25th day of July, 1888, in that part of the United States designated in numerous public documents as the "Public Land Strip," but commonly called "No Man's Land." It is 167 miles in length, 34 1/2 miles in width, lies between the 100th meridian of longitude and the Territory of New Mexico, and is bounded on the south by that part of Texas known as the "Panhandle," and by Kansas and Colorado on the north.
"Every person who commits murder . . .
within any fort, arsenal, dock-yard, magazine, or in any other place or district of country under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, . . . shall suffer death,"
and upon the Act of Congress of March 1, 1889, establishing a court of the United States for the Indian Territory and for other purposes, and attaching a part of that territory, for limited judicial purposes, to the Eastern District of Texas. 25 Stat. 783, c. 333.
The principal assignment of error is based upon these general propositions: that at the date of the alleged homicide, the Public Land Strip was not within the jurisdiction of any particular state or federal district, and that no court of the United States had jurisdiction to try the alleged offense, or, if any court had jurisdiction, it was not the court below, but the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Texas, or that of the district of Kansas, in which the defendants were found and arrested, and that if the above Act of March 1, 1889 -- under which alone this prosecution was conducted -- placed the Public Land Strip within the limits of the Eastern District of Texas, it did not, and consistently with the Constitution of the United States could not, give the circuit court for that district jurisdiction of offenses committed prior to its enactment.
Did Congress intend to attach the Public Land Strip to the Eastern District of Texas for any purpose? That necessarily is the question to be first considered. And it must be determined without reference to the Act of May 2, 1890, providing a temporary government for Oklahoma, for that act, while including this strip within the Territory of Oklahoma, declares that all "crimes committed in said territory" prior to its passage "shall be tried and prosecuted, and proceeded with until finally disposed of, in the courts now [then] having jurisdiction thereof," as if that act had not been passed. 26 Stat. 81, 86, c. 182, §§ 1, 9. We will be aided in the solution of the question of jurisdiction by recalling the history of the Public Land Strip, and various acts of Congress, preceding that of 1889, which are supposed to have some bearing upon this case.
Mexico. This appears from the Treaty of January 12, 1828, between the United States of America and the United Mexican States, confirming the previous Treaty of February 22, 1879, with the monarchy of Spain. 8 Stat. 372, 374. When Texas achieved its independence, this strip was within its limits. Indeed, the Republic of Texas originally embraced the present territory of the State of Texas as well as parts of what now constitutes New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Kansas. On the day of its admission into the union by the joint resolution of December 29, 1845, the Judicial District of Texas was established, embracing the entire state. 9 Stat. 1, 108.
Congress, by an Act of September 9, 1850, 9 Stat. 446, c. 49, made certain propositions to Texas, one of which was that its boundary on the north should commence at the point where the meridian of 100 degrees west from Greenwich is intersected by the parallel of 36 degrees 30 minutes north latitude, and run from that point due west to the meridian of 103 degrees; thence due south to the thirty-second degree of north latitude; thence on the latter parallel to the Rio Bravo del Norte, and thence with the channel of that river to the Gulf of Mexico. This proposition was accepted by Texas. Oldham and White's Digest Laws of Texas, p. 55. By the some act, § 2, the eastern boundary of New Mexico was established on the 103d meridian. The remaining territory of Texas, as it was when admitted into the union, passed by that act under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Territory of Kansas was organized by the Act of May 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 277, 283, c. 59, § 19, its southern line being fixed on the 37th parallel of north latitude. The Territory of Colorado was organized by an Act approved February 28, 1861, 12 Stat. c. 59, § 1, its eastern boundary being on the 102d meridian and its southern boundary being on the 37th parallel of north latitude. The result of all these enactments was that the body of public lands known as the "Public Land Strip" was left outside of Texas as well as of the Territories of New Mexico, Kansas, and Colorado.
By the Act of February 21, 1857, the State of Texas was divided into two judicial districts, the Western and the Eastern. 11 Stat. 164. The Northern district was established by an Act passed February 24, 1879, with courts at Waco, Callas County, and Graham, Young County, embracing 110 counties by name, including Sherman, Hansford, Ochiltree, and Lipscomb in the Panhandle, immediately south of the Public Land Strip, and Hemphill, Wheeler, Collingsworth, and Childress, immediately west of the 100th meridian, and Hardeman, Wilbarger, Wichita, Clay, Montague, Cooke, Grayson, Fannin, and Lamar, immediately south of the Indian Territory, in the central and eastern parts of Texas, but excluding the Counties of Red River and Bowie, in the latter state, near the Arkansas line. The same act enlarges the Eastern District of Texas, and designates all the counties that should thereafter compose the Eastern and Western Districts, respectively. Under this act, the Eastern District embraced, among others, the counties next to Louisiana and Arkansas, including Red River and Bowie. 20 Stat. 318, c. 97.
"all that part of the Indian Territory lying north of the Canadian River and east of Texas and the 100th meridian not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Indian tribes"
"exclusive original jurisdiction of all offenses committed within the limits of the territory hereby annexed to said District of Kansas against any of the laws of the United States now or that may hereafter be operative therein."
a part of the United States Judicial District known as the 'Northern District of Texas,' and the United States District Court at Graham, in said Northern District of Texas, shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all offenses committed within the limits of the territory hereby annexed to said Northern District of Texas against any of the laws of the United States now or that may hereafter be operative therein."
"§ 4. That nothing contained in this act shall be construed to affect in any manner any action or proceeding now pending in the Circuit or District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, nor the execution of any process relating thereto, nor shall anything in this act be construed to give to said District Courts of Kansas and Texas, respectively, any greater jurisdiction in that part of said Indian Territory so as aforesaid annexed, respectively, to said District of Kansas and said Northern District of Texas than might heretofore have been lawfully exercised therein by the Western District of Arkansas; nor shall anything in this act contained be construed to violate or impair in any respect any treaty provision whatever."
It is insisted on behalf of the United States that this act attached the Public Land Strip to the Northern District of Texas; that the words "Indian Territory" were used to include that strip, and that such a construction is sustained both by executive recognition and by the legislation of Congress.
"whose jurisdiction shall extend over the Indian Territory, bounded as follows, to-wit: north by the State of Kansas, east by the States of Missouri and Arkansas, south by the State of Texas, and west by the State of Texas and the Territory of New Mexico."
"exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States committed within the Indian Territory as in this act defined, not punishable by death or by imprisonment at hard labor."
"jurisdiction in all civil cases between citizens of the United States who are residents of the Indian Territory, or between citizens of the United States, or of any state or territory therein and any citizen of or person or persons residing or found in the Indian Territory, and when the value of the thing in controversy, or damages or money claimed, shall amount to one hundred dollars or more, provided that nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to give the court jurisdiction over controversies between persons of Indian blood only."
Kansas by the Act approved January sixth, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, and not set apart and occupied by the five civilized tribes, shall, from and after the passage of this act, be annexed to and constitute a part of the Eastern Judicial District of the State of Texas for judicial purposes."
"SEC. 18. That the Counties of Lamar, Fannin, Red River, and Delta of the State of Texas, and all that part of the Indian Territory attached to the said eastern Judicial District of the State of Texas by the provisions of this act, shall constitute a division of the Eastern Judicial District of Texas, and terms of the Circuit and District Courts of the United States for the said Eastern District of the State of Texas shall be held twice in each year at the City of Paris on the third Mondays in April and the second Mondays in October, and the United States courts herein provided to be held at Paris shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of all offenses committed against the laws of the United States within the limits of that portion of the Indian Territory attached to the eastern Judicial District of the State of Texas by the provisions of this act, of which jurisdiction is not given by this act to the court herein established in the Indian Territory, and all civil process, issued against persons resident in the said Counties of Lamar, Fannin, Red River, and Delta cognizable before the United States courts shall be made returnable to the courts, respectively, to be held in that City of Paris, Texas, and all prosecutions for offenses committed in either of said last-mentioned counties shall be tried in the division of said Eastern District of which said counties form a part, provided that no process issued or prosecution commenced or suit instituted before the passage of this act shall be in any way affected by the provisions thereof."
"SEC. 28. That all laws and parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and the same are hereby, repealed."
Other sections prescribe the modes of procedure in the court established by that act, and the punishment for numerous offenses.
1. that by the act of 1883, all of the "Indian Territory" north of the Canadian river and east of Texas and the 100th meridian not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee, Creek, and Seminole Indian tribes was attached to the District of Kansas, while the portion not so annexed and not set apart and occupied by the Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Seminole Indian tribes was annexed to the Northern District of Texas, saving actions or proceedings pending in the Circuit or District Court for the Western District of Arkansas; 2. that by the act of 1889, the court established for the Indian Territory was given exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses against the laws of the United States committed within the Indian Territory as defined by that act not punishable by death or by imprisonment at hard labor; 3. that exclusive original jurisdiction was given by the act of 1889 to the courts of the United States sitting at Paris, Texas, of all such offenses committed within the portion of the Indian Territory annexed to the Eastern District of that state of which jurisdiction was not given to the court established in and for the Indian Territory.
Much of the discussion by counsel was directed to the inquiry whether the act of 1883 attached the Public Land Strip to the Northern District of Texas. In view of the relations which certain Indian tribes once held to that strip, under treaties with the United States, which treaties will be referred to in another connection, there are some reasons for holding, in accordance with the contention of the government, that it was so attached to that district. But it is not necessary to decide that point, for however it might be determined, the question would remain whether the Public Land Strip was not within that portion of the Indian Territory, defined in the act of 1889, which was assigned by that act for certain judicial purposes to the Eastern District of Texas. If it was, the court below had jurisdiction of the offense charged in the indictment unless the latter act is construed as having no application to offenses committed prior to its passage. The act of 1883 is chiefly important in the present inquiry as it may serve to explain the provisions of the act of 1889.
"the land referred to is not embraced in any judicial district, and, not being within the jurisdiction of any United States court, the laws of the United States are inoperative, or at least cannot be enforced, therein."
by certain officers of the government. But it was further informed that the public interest absolutely demanded that that portion of the public domain should no longer remain in the condition in which it had been left for many years -- namely without being clearly included in some judicial district, whereby the rights of the general government as well as of individuals could be enforced against criminals and wrongdoers of every class. No possible reason can be suggested why, at the time of the passage of the act of 1889, the Public Land Strip should not have been brought within some judicial district.
"north by the State of Kansas [the southern line of that state constituting about two-thirds of the northern boundary of the Public Land Strip], east by the States of Missouri and Arkansas, south by the State of Texas, and west by the State of Texas and the Territory of New Mexico."
New Mexico," the eastern boundary of which is on the 103d meridian, must include within its limits the Public Land Strip, lying between New Mexico and the 100th meridian. This facts is of greater significance than the careless omission to state, in the act, that the Indian Territory, described in it, was bounded on the north by Colorado as well as by Kansas. The court at Muscogee was given exclusive original jurisdiction over all offenses against the United States, not punishable by death or by imprisonment at hard labor, committed not simply within the Indian Territory, but within the Indian Territory "as in this [that] act defined," while the court at Paris was given exclusive original jurisdiction of all offenses against the laws of the United States within the limits of that portion of the Indian Territory attached to the Eastern District of Texas "by the provisions of this [that] act" of which jurisdiction was not given to the court at Muscogee. If Congress did not intend to bring the Public Land Strip within the jurisdiction of the court established for the Indian Territory, and, for certain judicial purposes, within the jurisdiction of the courts held at Paris, in the Eastern District of Texas, why did it declare that the Indian Territory, for which it legislated in the act of 1889, was bounded on the west "by the State of Texas and the Territory of New Mexico?" We cannot hold the words "and the Territory of New Mexico" to be meaningless simply because the northern boundary of that strip was not described with precision and fullness, especially as every consideration of policy demanded that that part of the public domain should not longer be left without courts for the protection of the government and the people.
"resided within said limits, or as they may from time to time agree to admit among them, and that no white person, except officers, agents, and employees of the government, shall go upon or settle within the country embraced within said limits unless formally admitted and incorporated into some one of the tribes lawfully residing there, according to its laws and usages."
"Commencing at the northeast corner of New Mexico; thence south to the southeast corner of the same; these northeastwardly to a point on main Red River, opposite the mouth of the north fork of said river; thence down said river to the 98th degree of west longitude; thence due north of the said meridian to the Cimarone River; thence up said river to a point where the same crosses the southern boundary of the State of Kansas; thence along said southern boundary of Kansas to the southwest corner of said state; thence west to the place of beginning."
use, had some connection with Indians west of the Mississippi, and especially with some of those now occupying permanent reservations in the Indian Territory. That strip, we are informed, has not been occupied by Indians since 1867, but it was not opened to settlement, and could have been used for any of the purposes that the government had in view for Indians.
"It appears that the Cherokees claimed the 'Public Land Strip,' now so called, as the outlet above mentioned, and the official maps down to 1869, or later, designated said strip as part of the Indian Territory. I have not found in the records of this office any expressed reason why this strip was so designated on the maps, nor why that designation was changed upon the maps published after 1869."
The Commissioner recommended the passage of the proposed bill because it would take this "unorganized territory out of its anomalous condition to a certain extent, and open the lands to entry."
the north by Kansas, as well as on the west by the Territory of New Mexico, and which immediately adjoined the Indian Territory lying east of the 100th meridian.
Much was said at the bar about the unreasonableness of the supposition that Congress intended to subject the people in the Public Land Strip to the jurisdiction of a court sitting at so great a distance as Paris, Texas, rather than to one at Graham, in the Northern District of Texas, or one at Wichita, in Kansas. Judging by the map, the distance from the Public Land Strip to Paris is not much greater than to Graham. Indeed, the facilities for reaching Paris may be quite as good as those for reaching Graham. While the court of the United States nearest to the Public Land Strip, other than the one at Muscogee, seems to be the District Court of Kansas, this fact cannot control as against the natural meaning of the words of the act.
ndian Territory'" except . . . and except the unoccupied part of the Cherokee outlet, together with that portion of the United States known as the Public Land Strip.
Indian Territory mentioned in the act of 1889 had reference to the Public Land Strip.
Looking at this question in every light in which it may be considered, we repeat the expression of our opinion that the Public Land Strip, west of the 100th meridian, bounded on the south by Texas, on the west by New Mexico, and on the north by Colorado and Kansas, was annexed by the act of 1889 to the Eastern District of Texas for such judicial purposes as by that act appertained to the court held at Paris in that district.
infringe the settled rule that courts uniformly refuse to give to statutes a retrospective operation, where rights previously vested are injuriously affected, unless compelled to do so by language so clear and positive as to leave no room to doubt that such was the intention of the legislature. United States v. Heth, 3 Cranch 399, 7 U. S. 413; Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536, 112 U. S. 559. The saving of only pending prosecutions shows that Congress did not except any offense against the United States of which the court below was given jurisdiction.
"The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but, when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed."
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law."
"may be committed on the high seas and elsewhere out of the territorial jurisdiction of a state, it was indispensable that in such cases Congress should be enabled to provide the place of trial."
"The trial of crimes committed on the high seas, or in any place out of the jurisdiction of any particular state, shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought."
against the jurisdiction of the court, as it respects venue, trial in the county, and by jury from the vicinage, as well as in respect to the necessity of particular or fixed districts before the offense."
"Crimes committed against the laws of the United States out of the limits of a state are not local, but may be tried at such place as Congress shall designate by law, but are local if committed within the state. They must then be tried in the district in which the offense was committed."
If Congress -- as it did in the act of 1790, which may be regarded as a contemporaneous construction of the Constitution -- may provide for the trial of offenses committed outside of the states, in whatever district the accused is apprehended, or into which he may first be brought, it is difficult to perceive why, such crimes not being local, it may not provide a place of trial where none was provided when the offense was committed, or change the place of trial after the commission of the offense.
It is said that the construction we place upon the second section of Article III makes it obnoxious to the ex post facto clause of the Constitution. In support of this position, reference is made to Kring v. Missouri, 107 U. S. 221, where it was declared that any statute passed after the commission of an offense which, "in relation to that offense or its consequences, alters the situation of a party to his disadvantage," is an ex post facto law. This principle has no application to the present case. The act of 1889 does not touch the offense nor change the punishment therefor. It only includes the place of the commission of the alleged offense within a particular judicial district and subjects the accused to trial in that district, rather than in the court of some other judicial district established by the government against whose laws the offense was committed. This does not alter the situation of the defendants in respect to their offense or its consequences. "An ex post facto law," this Court said in Gut v. State, 9 Wall. 35, 76 U. S. 38, "does not involve in any of its definitions a change of the place of trial of an alleged offense after its commission."
Another contention of the defendants is that the indictment is fatally defective in that it fails to sufficiently show when Cross -- the person alleged to have been murdered -- died, or that he died within a year and a day from the infliction upon him of the alleged mortal wounds, or from the effect of such wounds, or within the territory in the jurisdiction of the court in which they were tried. As the Attorney General and the solicitor general submit this question without argument and without any suggestion in support of the indictment, and as the judgment must, for reasons to be presently stated, be reversed, leaving the government at liberty to find a new indictment if its officers shall be so advised, we will not extend this opinion by an examination of the authorities cited by the defendants to show the present indictment to be defective.
these statements were ever made to said Bradford is a question of fact to be considered by you from all the evidence upon that subject. And if you believe the statements were not so made to said Bradford, you are to disregard the same; but, if you believe from the evidence that they were so made to said Bradford, then you are instructed to consider them as evidence, but only as to such parties by whom they were made."
The jury were thus informed that this report, although merely hearsay, was substantive evidence upon the issue at to whether the defendants were present at, and participated in, the killing. The representatives of the government in this Court frankly concede, as it was their duty to do, that this action of the court below was so erroneous as to entitle the defendants to a reversal. Numerous other errors are said to have been committed at the trial to the prejudice of the defendants, but as such alleged errors may not be committed at the next trial, it is not necessary now to consider them.
For the error above mentioned, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded, with directions to grant a new trial.
* Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1872, p. 33; Letter of Commissioner of General Land Office to Durant, September 17, 1873, Rec.Com.Gen.Land Office, vol. 27, p 304; Report of Land Commission, p. 462; Report Com.Land Office, 1884; House Judiciary Committee, Rep. No. 2030, July 2, 1864; id., Report, Doc. No. 389, February 11, 1886, embodying letter of Commissioner Land Office of January 29, 1886; House Com. on Territories, 1887, Report No. 1684; id., 1888, Rep. No. 2857; id., Feb. 7, 1888, Rep. 263.

References: § 2
 § 19
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.