Supreme Court.- The power delegated to the Federal Supreme Court is for the restraint of unconstitutional legislation, not for the correction of alleged errors committed by the State judiciary, p. 343.

Cited and principle applied in Baltimore, etc., R. R. v. Hopkins, 130 U. S. 223, 32 L. 913, 9 S. Ct. 507, reviewing cases, holding judicial construction of Federal statute not questioning power of Congress to enact it not within appellate jurisdiction; Central Land Co. v. Laidley, 159 U. S. 110, 40 L. 94, 16 S. Ct. 82, where validity of statute was admitted and only question was of construction.

Miscellaneous.- Erroneously cited in Hall v. Hall, 43 Ala. 502, 94 Am. Dec. 712, upon validity of legislation by rebel organization in Alabama.

5 How. 343-382, 12 L. 181, SCOTT v. JONES.

Supreme Court will not interfere in cases claimed to come within the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, unless the decision be shown to come clearly within its letter and spirit, p. 375.

Cited and applied in Nauer v. Thomas, 13 Allen, 577, collecting cases, holding requisite question must be clearly shown to have arisen.

Appeal and error Jurisdiction.- State court decision in favor of the validity of a deed, claimed to have been good under acts of Congress, is not reviewable in Federal Supreme Court on the first ground stated in the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, p. 375.

Appeal and error Jurisdiction.- State court decision claimed to be against a right set up under acts of Congress, is not reviewable where record omits to show what acts of Congress are referred to, or where record shows that evidence offered upon the Federal question was excluded, p. 375.

Appeal and error.— An objection that a State legislature was not duly organized under acts of Congress and the Constitution, so as to pass valid statutes, will not give Federal Supreme Court jurisdiction upon the ground that a State statute was challenged as violating Federal limitations, pp. 376-379.

Cited and rule applied in Miners' Bank v. Iowa, 12 How. 7, 13 L. 870, and Messenger v. Mason, 10 Wall. 510, 19 L. 1029, denying jurisdiction to review decision upon validity of territorial statute under twenty-fifth section of judiciary act; Mosely v. Tuthill, 45 Ala. 650, 6 Am. Rep. 717, holding decisions of courts of insurgent government not reviewable in rightful appellate courts; Shorter v. Cobb, 39 Ga. 298, holding measures incorporated into Georgia Constitution under congressional direction prior to readmission into the Union, not reviewable. Cited also in Saginaw Gas Light Co. v. Saginaw, 28 Fed. 532, reviewing cases, confining operation of con

5 How. 382-410

Notes on U. S. Reports.

574

stitutional prohibition against laws impairing obligation of contracts to State laws; McElvain v. Mudd, 44 Ala. 65, 66, dissenting opinion, majority holding recovery could be had on note given for purchase of slaves during civil war; Smith v. United States, 1 Wash. Ter. 269, holding word "State" does not include "territory " in act of 1825 relative to punishment of crimes against government. Constitutional law.- Public bodies not duly organized or admitted to the Union, undertaking, as States, to pass laws encroaching on the Union or its granted powers, may be reached by exercise of the power to put down insurrections, or by the penal laws of the States or territories within which they act, not by examination of their measures in the Supreme Court on writ of error, such measures not being State statutes, p. 378.

Cited and principle applied in Hall v. Hall, 43 Ala. 498, 501, 502, 94 Am. Dec. 708, 711, 712, collecting cases, Ex parte Bibb, 44 Ala. 153, Ex parte Norton, 44 Ala. 182, 183, Noble v. Cullom, 44 Ala. 560, 561, 581, 582, 583, Hill v. Erwin, 44 Ala. 667, Perkins v. Corbin, 45 Ala. 117, 6 Am. Rep. 700, Scruggs v. Mayor, 45 Ala. 224, Mosely V. Tuthill, 45 Ala. 647, 648, 6 Am. Rep. 714, 715, Todd v. Neal's Administrator, 49 Ala. 270, 271, Thompson v. Mankin, 26 Ark. 594, 7 Am. Rep. 634, and Pennywit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 625, 22 Am. Rep. 357, reviewing cases, all refusing to recognize official acts of insurgent State government, where not ratified by political department of de jure government; Kelley v. State, 25 Ark. 398, holding judiciary must follow the political department as to the political status of a State.

Cited also in Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 57, 12 L. 605, dissenting opinion, majority dismissing case for irregularity in certificate. Miscellaneous.- Erroneously cited in 17 Fla. 125, instead of 5 How. (Miss.) 370, and in 24 Wis. 538, instead of 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 343.

5 How. 382-410, 12 L. 199, UNITED STATES v. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES.

Law of the case.- Where, on a previous appeal, the court indulged in remarks upon the structure of the bill of exchange upon which defense was based, unnecessary to decision of the question presented, the question of the structure of the bill was still open on a subsequent appeal, pp. 396, 400.

Cited in Wright v. Carson Water Co., 23 Nev. 49, 42 Pac. 200, dissenting opinion, reviewing cases, majority holding decision on final appeal became the law of the case.

Bills and notes.- Maryland act of 1785, relating to protests, in force in the District of Columbia, does not, in its terms, embrace a bill of exchange drawn by the United States on a foreign government, pp. 397, 400.

Bills and notes. A bill of exchange in form drawn by one government on another, is not governed by the law merchant, and, therefore, is not subject to protest and consequential damages, p. 400.

Cited in note to 98 Am. Dec. 683.

Miscellaneous.- Cited in Eight Hundred and Fifty-eight Bales, etc., Blatchf. Pr. 326, F. C. 4,318, collecting cases, holding government chargeable with freight for conveyance of property captured as prize.

5 How. 410-440, 12 L. 213, FOX v. OHIO.

Appeal and error.- On error to highest State court, Federal Supreme Court cannot review accuracy of pleadings, pending the prosecution, but only whether that portion of the State statute under which the prosecution took place infringed any Federal limitation, p. 433.

Constitutional law. Power of Congress "to provide for the punishment of counterfeiting,” etc., does not prevent a State from passing a law punishing offense of circulating counterfeit United States coin, pp. 433, 434.

Cited and principle applied in Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 76, 15 L. 272, holding State law forfeiting vessel taking oysters with scoop in Chesapeake bay, not in conflict with Federal admiralty jurisdiction; People v. White, 34 Cal. 186, and Dashing v. State, 78 Ind. 358, both sustaining State law punishing counterfeiting; In re Truman, 44 Mo. 183, and Jett v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 953, 954, 956, 967, reviewing decisions, holding passing counterfeit United States treasury note indictable under State law; State v. Brown, 2 Or. 224, holding offense of having implements adapted to counterfeiting money punishable by State; Martin v. State, 18 Tex. App. 225, sustaining authority of State to punish counterfeiting. Cited also in Passenger Cases, 7 How. 556, 12 L. 816, dissenting opinion, majority holding State tax on alien passengers arriving at ports in the State unconstitutional; United States v. —————— 24 Fed. Cas. 742, 743, denying Federal jurisdiction of offense of passing counterfeits, holding leading case to have so decided; arguendo, in People v. Naglee, 1 Cal. 241, 52 Am. Dec. 320, reviewing authorities, sustaining power of State to require payment of license fee by foreign gold miners; Hancock v. Yaden, 121 Ind. 374, 16 Am. St. Rep. 402, 23 N. E. 255, 6 L. R. A. 579, sustaining law prohibiting contract between prospective employer and employe for payment in anything but lawful money; State v. Bardwell, 72 Miss. 541, 18 So. 379, sustaining State law punishing national bank officer for receiving deposit after insolvency; arguendo, in Bletz v. Columbia National Bank, 87 Pa. St. 93, 30 Am. Rep. 347, sustaining State court jurisdiction to enforce private right created by Federal statute.

5 How. 410-440

Notes on U. S. Reports.

576

Distinguished in United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 568, 13 L. 261, sustaining authority of Congress to pass law punishing importations of counterfeits and passing same; Ex parte Houghton, 7 Fed. 659, 663, re-reported, 8 Fed. 898, 902, denying State court jurisdiction of punishing counterfeit national bank notes; Donnell v. State, 3 Ind. 481, denying constitutionality of State law punishing offense of enticing away and secreting slaves from citizens of other States; Jett v. Commonwealth, 18 Gratt. 940, 941, 942, 943, 946, dissenting opinion, reviewing cases, majority sustaining State's authority to punish crime of passing counterfeit money.

Counterfeiting. The offenses of counterfeiting coin, and of passing counterfeit money, are essentially different, the former being an offense against the government by which individuals may be affected; the latter a private wrong by which the government may be remotely reached, if at all, p. 433.

Cited and principle applied in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 423, 29 L. 91, 5 S. Ct. 938, distinguishing between infamous crimes requiring presentment or indictment by grand jury, and mere private cheats; United States v. Coppersmith, 2 Flipp. 557, 4 Fed. 206, collecting authorities, distinguishing between offenses of making, and of passing, counterfeit coins; United States v. Field, 21 Blatchf. 331, 16 Fed. 778, United States v. Yates, 6 Fed. 864, and In re Wilson, 18 Fed. 34, affirmed in Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 423, 29 L. 91, 5 S. Ct. 938, holding passing counterfeits not infamous crime.

Constitutional amendments.- The prohibition contained in the constitutional amendments are exclusively restrictions upon Federal, and not State, power; so that the possibility of an offender against State law prescribing penalty for passing counterfeits, being punished a second time by Federal authority, is no argument against the constitutionality of such law, pp. 434, 435.

This holding has been very extensively relied upon by subsequent cases. In the Federal courts, the following affirm and apply the principle: United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 568, 13 L. 261, sustaining authority of both State and Federal governments to punish circulation of counterfeits; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 20, 14 L. 309, sustaining State's authority to punish harborer of fugitive slave, notwithstanding offense also punishable under act of Congress; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 91, 15 L. 819, denying jurisdiction to examine State law violating State constitutional provision against taking private property for State uses; Twitchell v. Commonwealth, 7 Wall. 327, 19 L. 224, denying application for writ of error, based on alleged repugnancy to certain constitutional amendments of State law under which prosecution had; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 557, 22 L. 492, collecting cases, holding Federal constitutional provision securing trial by jury in certain cases not applicable to State courts; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 552, 23 L. 591, col

lecting cases, holding first amendment protects right to assemble from encroachment by Congress only; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 390, 25 L. 724, and Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 139, 33 L. 290, 10 S. Ct. 49, reviewing cases, sustaining authority of both State and Federal governments to punish same act, constituting offense against both; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 265, 29 L. 619, 6 S. Ct. 584, holding second amendment protects right to bear arms from infringement by Congress only; Eilenbecker v. Plymouth County, 134 U. S. 34, 33 L. 803, 10 S. Ct. 425, and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 538, 38 L. 813, 14 S. Ct. 875, collecting cases, holding limitations of certain earlier articles of constitutional amendments apply exclusively to Federal government; Talton v. Mayes, 163 U. S. 382, 41 L. 198, 16 S. Ct. 989, collecting cases, holding constitutional amendment relating to indictment by grand jury inapplicable to trial by Cherokee court; United States v. Barnhart, 10 Sawy. 497, 498, 500, 22 Fed. 290, 291, holding acquittal in State court for murder no bar to prosecution for manslaughter in Federal court; Campbell v. United States, 4 Fed. Cas. 1203, 1204, sustaining Federal government's power to punish circulation of counterfeits, notwithstanding like authority in State; United States v. Amy, 24 Fed. Cas. 811, rereported in 14 Md. 152, holding liability to punishment by State authority no bar to prosecution in Federal tribunal; United States v. Given, 25 Fed. Cas. 1331, briefly reviewing cases, and United States v. Wells, 28 Fed. Cas. 523, sustaining power of both State and Federal governments to punish acts violating laws of both; Kansas v. Bradley, 26 Fed. 290, Ex parte Ulrich, 42 Fed. 589, and In re Boggs, 45 Fed. 475, all holding first ten amendments to Constitution are restrictions upon Federal powers and not State.

State court citing cases which have affirmed and followed the rule, are: Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 458, 25 Am. Rep. 558, Cairo, etc., R. R. v. Turner, 31 Ark. 499, 25 Am. Rep. 567, People v. State Reformatory, 148 Ill. 425, 36 N. E. 80, 23 L. R. A. 143, State v. Boswell, 104 Ind. 542, 4 N. E. 676, collecting cases, Weimer v. Bunbury, 30 Mich. 208, North Missouri R. R. v. Maguire, 49 Mo. 496, 8 Am. Rep. 143, collecting cases, Walker v. New Mexico, etc., Rd., 7 N. Mex. 288, 34 Pac. 43, collecting cases, State v. Caldwell, 115 N. C. 803, 20 S. E. 526, In re Liquors of Fitzpatrick, 16 R. I. 63, 11 Atl. 775, State v. Starling, 15 Rich. L. 128, State v. Aiken, 42 S. C. 248, 20 S. E. 231, 26 L. R. A. 358, State v. Brennan, 2 S. Dak. 389, 50 N. W. 626, State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 458, Cox v. State, 8 Tex. App. 285, Martin v. State, 18 Tex. App. 225, Martin v. Johnson, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 33 S. W. 308, and Ex parte McNeely, 36 W. Va. 96, 32 Am. St. Rep. 841, 14 S. E. 440, 15 L. R. A. 230, holding the first ten constitutional amendments are restrictions of Federal powers exclusively; People v. McDonnell, 80 Cal. 291, 13 Am. St. Rep. 165, 22 Pac. 192, holding counterfeiting foreign bank notes an offense punishable by both State and Federal governments; State v. Moore, 6 Ind. 436, holding VOL. IV - 37