Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 7.djvu/676

664 fEDEBAL BEPOBTEB. �411 ; and other cases before cited. The provision in the con- stitution prohibiting putting twice in jeopardy for the same offence, was for the protection of the people from oppres- sion. Houston V. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1. It may be said that this only applied to the tribanals of the United States; but, if 80, it i's a restraint of the courts under the laws of con- gress. Under it, congress could not œake the same offence punishable twice. And if congress could not do this directly, it could not indirectly, by creating an offence, and leaving the states to punish it once, and providing by its own laws to punish it again. �This offence appears to be one over which the state court had no jurisdiction, and the relator is restrained of his lib- erty without warrant of law. The next question is whether he can be relieved in this mode. �In 1867 the writ of habeas corpus from the courts and judges of the United States was extended to persons in ous- tody, in violation of the constitution, or of a law or treaty of the United States. Eev. St. § 753. The law of the United States was, and is, that the relator should be tried by the courts of the United States, and not by those of the state, and, if guilty, that he should be punished aecording to the laws of the United States, and not under those of the state under which he is in custody. This court has jurisdiction of the relator under these provisions by this writ. �The inquiry into the cause of his confinement is not a review of the proceedings of the state court. If the atten- tion of that court had been called to this aspect of the case, probably this proceeding would have been wholly unneces- sary; but the record shows that it was not. The point here is not at all that the relator was not proceeded with in a proper manner by the state court, but that the court had no jurisdiction over him for this offence. In such cases the remedy may be by habeas corpus. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163. �Brown v. U. S. 14 Am. Law Eeg. 566, before Erskine, J., and afterwards before Mr. Justice Bradley, is an authority that section 711 gives exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of ��� �