Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/912

898 FEDEEAIi EBPOBTEB. �Houston V. Moore, 5 Wheat. 1; The Moses Taylor, 4 Wall. 411; Martin y. Hunter, 1 Wheat. 304; Com. v. Fuller, 8 Metc. (Mass.) 313 ; 1 Kent, Com. 399. �National banks are organized under the laws of the United States ; their bills are issued to them by the treasury department of the United States, secured by bonds of the United States on deposit thei?e, which fact is tp be expfeoscd on their face by the signatures of the treasurer and register, and the seal of the treasury of the United States. Eev. St. § 5372. They are securities of the United States which congress bas power tq proteet by punishing counterfeiting them, and the passing of counterfeits of them, and are so declared to be: in the laws of the United States. Eey. St. § 5413. Whether the state court had jurisdiction over this offence or not depends on ■whether congress bas excluded that jurisdiction or left it to those courts under the laws of the states. �The judiciary act of 1789 provided, section 11,— �"That the circuit courts shall have * * * exclusive cognizance of all crimes and offences cognizable under the authority of the United States, ex- cept where this act otherwise provides, or the laws of the United States shall otherwise direct. * * *" 1 St. at Large, 78. �By the act of April 21, 1806, provision was made for punishing counterfeiting of the coin of the United States, and by that of Feb- ruary 24, 1807, for that of forging notes of the bank of the United States, and by that of March 3, 1825, for that of forging certificates of public stocks or other securities 6i the United States, counterfeit- ing coin of the United States and other i coun tries, and passing eounterfeit coin. Section 26 of the act of 1825 provides, as similar sections in each of the other acts had donej that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to deprive the courts of the individual states of jurisdiction under the laws of the several states over offences made punishable by this act. 4 St. at Large, 122. �This provision expressly left to the states jurisdiction of the partic- ular offences mentioned in those acts, the same as if congress had never exercised its power to punish them. �A person was convicted under a statute of Ohio for passing eoun- terfeit coin, and the conviction was upheld as not being contrary to the laws of the United States. Fox v. Ohio, 5 How. 410. So, under a statute of Vermont, (State v. Randall, 2 Aik. 89,) and a statute of Massachusetts, (Com. v. Fuller, 8 Metc. 313.) But upon demur- rer to an indictment under the laws of New Hampshire for pun- ishing perjury generally, for perjury committed in proceedings under ��� �