Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/913

EX PARTE HOUGHTON. 899 �the bankrupt act of 1841, it was held that the state court had no jurisdiction over that offence, State v. Pike, 15 N. H. 83. In Moore V. Illinois, 14 How. 13, the respondent was convicted of harboring and secreting a negro slave contrary to the statute of Illinois. It was argued that the state court had no jurisdiction, because the laws of the United States provided for punishing obstructing the owner of a negro slave in endeavoring to reclaim him, and concealing the fugitive after notice ; but the jurisdiction of the state was maintained on the ground that the offences were different. �The supreme court of Massachusetts took jurisdiction of an embez- zletnent of a private special deposit in a national bank by an employe of the bank, on the ground that congress had not provided for that particular offence. Commonwealth v. Tenney, 97 Mass. 50. The national bank acts were passed in 1863 and 1864, and provision was made for the punishment of counterfeiting their bills and passing the counterfeits, but there was no reservation to the state in making these provisions. Without such reservation the states had no power ieft to them to supplement the acts of congress by legislation cover- ing the same ground. Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122 ; Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 639. �The statute of Vermont, under which the relator was indicted and is imprisoned, was passed in 1869. At that time, and until the adoption of the Revised Statutes of the United States, June 22, 1874, there was nothing giving up to states the jurisdiction which congress had taken over this offence, or any part of it. The Revised Statutes oontains the title of "Crimes," in which the provisions for punishing counterfeited national bank bills are placed. It also has this gen- erai provision : �"Sec. 5328. Ifothing in this title shall be held to take away or impair the jurisdiction of the courts of the several states under the laws thereof." �The provisions of the judiciary act relg,ting to the criminal juris- diction of the circuit court are brought into section 629, twentieth, with the qualification of exclusive cognizance changed to "except where it is, or may be, otherwise provided by law." If these pro- visions were all, it might be said that congress had expressly with- drawn the jurisdiction before taken of offences mentioned in the title of "Crimes," so far as the states might choose to exercise similar jurisdiction through their courts. But chapter 12 of the title on "Judiciary," entitled "Provisions common to more than one court or judge," was placed in the Eevision, and enaeted as a part of the Ee- vised Statutes. It commences with section 71 1 : ��� �