§ 613 a or not, if the statute of the general government neither in its terms nor by necessary implication excludes the State law, the authority of the States in the premises is not su perseded.1 Therefore indictments are maintainable in the State courts for the offence, against the State, of counterfeiting the coin or bills of the United States, or foreign coin made current by act of congress; while proceedings will also lie, under United States statutes, before the national tribuhals, for doing the same thing as an offence against the United States.2 Congress has not here attempted to restrict the power of the States. And there are other cases of like concurrent jurisdiction.1 § 613 a. The effect of a prosecution for the offence as against one of these sovereignties, upon an indictment for it as against the other, will be considered in a subsequent. chapter. In the mean time, the reader will be instructed by the following extract from an opinion delivered in the su-preme court of the United States, relating both to that point, and to the general topic now under discussion. Said Grier, J.: "Every citizen of the United States is also a citizen of a State or territory. He may be said to owe allegiance to two sovereigns, and may be liable to punishment for an infraction of the laws of either. The same act may be an offence or transgression of the laws of both. Thus, an assault upon the marshal of the United States, and hindering him in the 'Ante, § 610; Harlan v. People, 1 Doug. Mich. 207; Fox v. Ohio, supra ; : Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. U. S. 13. 2 Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. U. S. 410; The State v. Antonio, 3 Brev. 562,. 2 Const. 776; The State v. Tutt, 2 Bailey, 44; Harlan v. People, 1 Doug. Mich. 207; Sutton v. The State, 9 Ohio, 133; Chess v. The State, 1 Blackf. 198; Commonwealth v. Fuller, 8 Met. 313; The State v. Pitman, 1 Brev. 32; Hendrick v. Commonwealth, 5 Leigh, 707. See Rouse v. The State, 4 Ga. 136; Manly v. People, 3 Seld. 295, 302, 303. The State v. Adams, 4 Blackf. 146; Harlan v. People, 1 Doug. Mich... 207; Fox v. Ohio, supra. See People v. The Sheriff, 1 Parker, 659. Post, § 655 et seq. execution of legal process, is a high offence against the United States, for which the perpetrator is liable to punishment; and the same act may be also a gross breach of the peace of the State, a riot, assault, or a murder, and subject the same person to a punishment under the State laws for a misdemeanor or felony. That either or both may (if they see fit) punish such an offender cannot be doubted. Yet it cannot be truly averred, that the offender has been twice punished for the same offence; but only that by one act he has committed two offences, for each of which he is justly punishable. He could not plead the punishment by one in bar of a conviction by the other; consequently this court has decided,1 that a State may punish the offence of uttering or passing false coin, as a cheat or fraud practised on its citizens; and 2 that congress, in the proper exercise of its authority, may punish the same act, as an offence against the United States." B These views are in substance the prevailing ones; but, while clearly both governments may punish the act if both choose, still the common law principles of our jurisprudence may re'quire a different disposition of the question, in the absence of express legislation. III. The Jurisdiction proceeding from the Parlies. § 614. The doctrine seems to be established sufficiently in authority, while it rests well on principle, and is calculated to promote harmony in the workings of our complicated system, that the United States and the States are severally entitled to appropriate, each to itself, as many of the people of the country as it needs to carry on its various functions; which persons are bound to no conflicting duties to the other government; and which appropriation may be made, if the 1 Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. U. S. 410, 432. 2 United States v. Marigold, 9 How. U. S. 560. appropriating government choosès, exclusive, so as to prevent any service being rendered by the persons to the other govern ment.1 In such a case, however, a man in the employ of the United States, for instance, could not be permitted, further than his duty required, to violate the law of a State; but what are all the limitations and the entire consequences of this doctrine, we may not be able to say. We have already seen, that, when a man accepts office from a government, he thereby places himself under obligation to that government, faithfully to discharge his official duties. §615. Consuls are neither indictable nor pursuable civilly in the State courts, but only in the courts of the United States. At the same time the doctrine appears to be, as already intimated," that the offence itself, or the civil wrong, for which the consul is called in question, may be in violation of the laws of a particular State, enforced therefore in the national tribunal. § 616. Although there are numerous other instances in which the tribunals of the United States administer the laws of the several States, it is settled, after some diversity of judicial opinion, that the State judicatories cannot do the same thing concerning the United States laws. If, therefore, an act of congress expressly authorizes a State court to try persons accused of an offence against the general govern 1 The State v. Martindale, 1 Bailey, 163. And see Commonwealth v. Knox, 6 Mass. 76. 2 United States v. Hart, Pet. C. C. 390. 3 Ante, § 360.... ↑ Mannhardt v. Soderstrom, 1 Binn. 138; Hall v. Young, 3 Pick. 80; Sartori v. Hamilton, 1 Green, N. J. 107; United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; Valarino v. Thompson, 3 Seld. 576; Commonwealth v. Kosloff, 5 S. & R. 545; Griffin v. Dominguez, 2 Duer, 656; United States v. Ravara, 2 Dall. 297; ante, § 19. And see United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467; 1 Kent Com. 45. Ante, § 19. • Ante, § 19. J H ment, and if the latter court consents, still it cannot do so, The authority is void. But there may be a concurrent juris, diction in some matters of habeas corpus, and the like.2 " 1 IV. Locality of Crime against the United States. § 617. The constitution of the United States provides, in the body of the instrument, that "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." And an amendment further declares: "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."4 § 618. The principal acts of congress relating to the mat ter provide, that, "in cases punishable with death, the trial shall be had in the county where the offence was committed; 1 Story Const. § 1756; People v. Lynch, 11 Johns. 549; United States v. Lathrop, 17 Johns. 4; United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 60; The State v. Pike, 15 N. H. 83; Ely v. Peck, 7 Conn. 239; Davison v. Champlin, 7 Conn. 244; Commonwealth v. Feely, 1 Va. Cas. 321; Jackson v. Rose, 2 Va. Cas. 34; Haney v. Sharp, 1 Dana, 442; Wetherbee v. Johnson, 14 Mass. 412; Stearns v. United States, 2 Paine, 300; The State v. McBride, Rice, 400, overruling The State v. Wells, 2 Hill, S. C. 687; The State v. Adams, 4 Blackf. 146. Contra, United States v. Smith, 1 Southard, 33; Buckwalter v. United States, 11 S. & R. 193. See Commonwealth v. Schaffer, 4 Dall. App. xxvi; The State v. Randall, 2 Aikens, 89; The State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317; The State v. Tutt, 2 Bailey, 44. 2 Commonwealth v. Fox, 7 Barr, 336; Ex parte Smith, 5 Cow. 273; Stearns v. United States, 2 Paine, 300; Ex parte Gist, 26 Ala. 156. U. S. Constitution, art. 3, § 2, cl. 3. 464. U. S. Constitution, Amendm. art. 6; United States v. Britton, 2 Mason, or, where that cannot be done without great inconvenience, twelve petit jurors at least shall be summoned from thence;" and that "the trial of all offences which shall be committed upon the high seas or elsewhere, out of the limits of any State or district, shall be in the district where the offender is apprehended, or into which he may be first brought." The former of these provisions is earlier in date than the constitutional amendment recited in the last section; by which, however, it is not repealed, while yet it may be modified in some slight degree by subsequent legislation. The courts deem themselves to comply with the provision when they summon the jurors mentioned from the county in which the offence was committed, without resorting to the difficult and doubtful expedient of ordering a special term to be held in that county.5 1.1.1 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 88, act of Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, § 29; United States v. Burr, 1 Burr's Trial, Phil. Ed. 352; United States v. Cornell, 2 ́ Mason, 91, 96; United States v. Wilson, Bald. 78, 117. 24 U. S. Stat. at Large, p. 118, act of 1825, c. 65, § 14. And see The Octavia, 1 Gallis. 488; United States v. Thompson, 1 Sumner, 168. United States v. Burr, 1 Burr's Trial, Phil. Ed. 352, 353. : United States v. Cornell, 2 Mason, 91, 96. See the several cases before cited to this section. A มะ VOL. I. 54 [637] |