Opinion of the Court.

tent for this purpose and deriving his authority to do this from no other source, stands upon the same ground as testimony taken before any judge or officer of the United States, and perjury in giving such testimony is punishable in the courts of the United States. United States v. Bailey, 9 Pet. 238.

There are cases (the most familiar of which are those of making and uttering counterfeit money) in which the same act may be a violation of the laws of the State, as well as of the laws of the United States, and be punishable by the judiciary of either. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410; United States v. Marigold, 9 How. 560; Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13; Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 390; Cross v. North Carolina, 132 U. S. 131.

But the power of punishing a witness for testifying falsely in a judicial proceeding belongs peculiarly to the government in whose tribunals that proceeding is had. It is essential to the impartial and efficient administration of justice in the tribunals of the nation, that witnesses should be able to testify freely before them, unrestrained by legislation of the State, or by fear of punishment in the state courts. The administration of justice in the national tribunals would be greatly embarrassed and impeded if a witness testifying before a court of the United States, or upon a contested election of a member of Congress, were liable to prosecution and punishment in the courts of the State upon a charge of perjury, preferred by a disappointed suitor or contestant, or instigated by local passion or prejudice.

A witness who gives his testimony, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, in a case pending in a court or other judicial tribunal of the United States, whether he testifies in the presence of that tribunal, or before any magistrate or officer (either of the nation or of the State) designated by act of Congress for the purpose, is accountable for the truth of his testimony to the United States only; and perjury committed in so testifying is an offence against the public justice of the United States and within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the United States; and cannot, therefore, be punished in the courts of Virginia under the general provision of her statutes that "if any person, to whom

Opinion of the Court.

an oath is lawfully administered on any occasion, wilfully swears falsely on such occasion touching any material matter or thing," he shall be guilty of perjury. Virginia Code of 1887, § 3741.

It has accordingly been held by the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, in an able opinion of Chief Justice Parker, that the courts of a State have no jurisdiction of the crime of perjury committed in an examination before a commissioner under the United States Bankrupt Act; State v. Pike, 15 N. H. 83; by Mr. Justice Bradley, affirming a decision of Judge Erskine, as well as by the Supreme Courts of Tennessee and of Georgia, that the state courts have no jurisdiction of perjury in testifying before a commissioner of the Circuit Court of the United States; Ex parte Bridges, 2 Woods, 428; S. C. nom. Brown v. United States, 14 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 566; State v. Shelley, 11 Lea (Tenn.) 594; Ross v. State, 55 Georgia, 192; and by the courts of other States, that they have no jurisdiction of perjury in making an affidavit under the acts of Congress relating to the sale of public lands. State v. Adams, 4 Blackford, 146; People v. Kelly, 38 California, 145; State v. Kirkpatrick, 32 Arkansas, 117.

The decisions in the Supreme Courts of Pennsylvania and of New Hampshire, cited for the appellant, holding that the judiciary of a State has jurisdiction of perjury committed in a proceeding for naturalization before a court of the State, under authority of Congress, tend rather to support than to oppose our conclusion; for they were put upon the ground that the proceeding for naturalization was a judicial proceeding in a court of the State, as it doubtless was. Rump v. Commonwealth, 30 Penn. St. 475; State v. Whittemore, 50 N. H. 245; Spratt v. Spratt, 4 Pet. 393, 408.

The courts of Virginia having no jurisdiction of the matter of the charge on which the prisoner was arrested, and he being in custody, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States, for an act done in pursuance of those laws by testifying in the case of a contested election of a member of Congress, law and justice required that he should be discharged from such custody, and he was rightly so discharged by the

Statement of the Case.

Circuit Court on writ of habeas corpus. 761; Ex parte Royall, 117 U. S. 241.

Rev. Stat. § 751,

Judgment affirmed.

IN RE GREEN.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.

No. 1117. Submitted January 21, 1890.- Decided March 24, 1890.

The courts of a State have jurisdiction of an indictment for illegal voting for electors of President and Vice President of the United States; and a person sentenced by a state court to imprisonment upon such an indictment cannot be discharged by writ of habeas corpus, although the indictment and sentence include illegal voting for a representative in Congress.

THIS was a writ of habeas corpus, granted upon the petition of Charles Green, by the Circuit Court of the United States, to the sergeant and jailer of the city of Manchester in the State of Virginia, who justified his detention of the prisoner under a judgment of the hustings or corporation court of the city, sentencing him to be imprisoned in the city jail for five weeks and to pay a fine of five dollars, upon his conviction by a jury on an indictment charging him with unlawfully, knowingly, corruptly, and with unlawful intent, voting at an election held in that city for a representative in Congress and for electors of President and Vice President of the United States on November 6, 1888, being disqualified by a previous conviction for petty larceny.

By the Code of Virginia of 1887, general elections are held throughout the State on the fourth Tuesday in May, and on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, in each year, for all officers required by law to be chosen at such elections respectively; § 109; persons convicted of bribery at an election, embezzlement of public funds, treason, felony or petty larceny, are disqualified to vote; § 62; elections are by ballot containing the names of all persons intended to be

Opinion of the Court.

voted for and designating the office of each; § 122; members of the House of Representatives of the United States are chosen by the qualified voters of the respective congressional districts at the general election in November, 1888, and in every second year thereafter; § 52; electors for President and Vice President of the United States are chosen by the qualified voters of the State at the election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November, 1888, and on the corresponding day in each fourth year thereafter, or at such other time as may be appointed by Congress; §§ 54, 55; and any person, who shall knowingly vote in any election district in which he does not reside and is registered, or vote more than once at the same election, "or, not being a qualified elector, vote at any election with an unlawful intent," shall be punished by imprisonment in jail not exceeding one year, and by fine not exceeding $1000. § 3851.

The Circuit Court was of opinion "that the United States courts for this district have sole and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine the matters and things alleged in the bill of indictment found in the said hustings court of Manchester, upon the ground that the acts of Congress in such case made and provided (Rev. Stat. §§ 5511, 5514,) have defined the offence charged in the said indictment and prescribed the penalty therefor, and that the United States courts have sole and exclusive jurisdiction thereof, and that the said hustings or corporation court of Manchester had no jurisdiction of the matters and things charged in the said indictment against the said Charles Green;" and therefore adjudged that the prisoner be discharged. The respondent appealed to this court.

Mr. J. Randolph Tucker and Mr. R. A. Ayers, Attorney General of the State of Virginia, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case, as in Loney's case, just decided, (ante, 372,) the question presented is whether the courts of the State of Virginia

Opinion of the Court.

had jurisdiction of the charge against the prisoner. But that is the only respect in which the two cases have any resemblance.

By the Constitution of the United States, the electors for President and Vice President in each State are appointed by the State in such manner as its legislature may direct; their number is equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the State is entitled in Congress; no senator or representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector; and the electors meet and vote within the State, and thence certify and transmit their votes to the seat of government of the United States. The only rights and duties, expressly vested by the Constitution in the national government, with regard to the appointment or the votes of presidential electors, are by those provisions which authorize Congress to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they shall give their votes, and which direct that the certificates of their votes shall be opened by the president of the Senate in the presence of the two houses of Congress, and the votes shall then be counted. Constitution, art. 2, sect. 1; Amendments, art. 12.

The sole function of the presidential electors is to cast, certify and transmit the vote of the State for President and Vice President of the nation. Although the electors are appointed and act under and pursuant to the Constitution of the United States, they are no more officers or agents of the United States than are the members of the state legislatures when acting as electors of federal senators, or the people of the States when acting as electors of representatives in Congress. Constitution, art. 1, sects. 2, 3.

In accord with the provisions of the Constitution, Congress has determined the time as of which the number of electors shall be ascertained, and the days on which they shall be appointed and shall meet and vote in the States, and on which their votes shall be counted in Congress; has provided for the filling by each State, in such manner as its legislature may prescribe, of vacancies in its college of electors; and has regulated the manner of certifying and transmitting their votes to