tive. U. S. vs. Davin, 189 Federal, 244. If one violates the provisions of this Act he is guilty thereunder, even though he is not also guilty of procuring the entry of such female into the United States. U. S. vs. Davin, 189 Federal, 244. See also same case for form of indictment. The doctrine that one must file this statement even though such person did not import the alien female, directly or indirectly, is affirmed in the case of U. S. vs. Portale, U. S., Supreme Court, Oct. Term, 1914, page 1.

§ 393.

CHAPTER XXII.

SOME GENERAL AND ACCEPTED PROVISIONS.

Punishment of Death by Hanging.

394. No Conviction to Work Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture of Estate.

399a. Pardon, Acceptance of and President's Power.

400. Qualified Verdicts in Certain Cases.

401. Body of Executed Offender May be Delivered to Surgeon for

405. Omission of Words, "Hard Labor” Not to Deprive Court of Power to Impose.

§ 393. Punishment of Death by Hanging.-Section 323 of the new Code, is in the exact words of old Statute 5325, to wit:

"Sec. 323. The manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be by hanging."

$394. No Conviction to Work Corruption of Blood or Forfeiture of Estate.-Section 324 of the new Code is in the identical words of the old Statute 5326, as follows:

"Sec. 324. No conviction or judgment shall work corruption of blood or any forfeiture of estate."

In England, felony comprises every species of crime which at Common-Law worked a forfeiture of goods and lands.

§ 395. Whipping and the Pillory Abolished.-Section 325 of the new Code uses the words of old Statute 5327, as follows:

"Sec. 325. The punishment of whipping and of standing in the pillory shall not be inflicted."

§ 396. Jurisdiction of State Courts.-Section 326 of the new Code uses the words of the old Statute 5328, as follows:

"Sec. 326. Nothing 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 word "Title" used in the above section must necessarily mean all of the sections in the new Code; that is, from Section 1 to Section 325, inclusive. It could not be limited to the few sections in Chapter XIV. of the new Code, which treats alone of general and special provisions.

Decisions.-The efforts of the Courts to maintain the sovereignty of the Federal and State Governments without impingement from either side have been both commendable and successful. It is true that at times the line has been difficult to trace, and conflict seemed imminent, but careful reasoning and a thorough determination to preserve the autonnomy and virgin jurisdiction of each Government have usually triumphed. Even the Supreme Court of the United States has not hesitated to distinguish its own decisions so as to keep the line as distinct as possible. In the case of New York vs. Eno, 155 U. S., page 89, hereinafter noticed, it became necessary for the preservation of the State lines to distinguish in re Loney, 134 U. S., 372, and the Court did so by announcing that the Loney decision was one of urgency, which involved the authority and operation of the general Government.

It may be announced as the general rule, gathered from the decisions, that where there is an apparent conflict of authority, and the State Court secures jurisdiction of the person, that person must exhaust all State remedies before appealing to the Federal Courts for relief. If, however, as in the Loney case, immediate action is urgent, not to the interests of the person, but to the interests of the general Government, then and in that event the Courts of the general Govern

ment will interfere before all State remedies have been exhausted. So, too, if Congress has taken exclusive jurisdiction of an offense interference by similar prosecutions in the State Courts are not permitted.

§ 397. Illustrations.—In the case of Cross vs. North Carolina, 132 U. S., 140, 33 Law Ed., 287, the Supreme Court held that where an officer of a national bank forged a promissory note and entered it upon the books of the bank for the purpose of sustaining false entries in the books and in order to deceive the United States Bank Examiner, he could be tried and convicted of forgery of the note in the State Court although the offense of making such false entries is one against the United States, of which its Courts have exclusive cognizance. In other words, the crime of forgery against the State could not be excused or obliterated by committing another and distinct crime against the United States; and the act, or series of acts, constituting an offense equally against the United States and the State, subjects the guilty party to punishment under the laws of each Government. In Thomas vs. Loney, 134 U. S., 377, 33 Law Ed., 949, the Supreme Court of the United States discharged, upon habeas corpus, applicant Loney from imprisonment under a warrant of arrest from a justice of the peace of Virginia, upon a complaint charging him with perjury in giving his deposition as a witness before a notary public of the city of Richmond, in the case of a contested election of a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, and held, in substance, that the notary public designated by Congress to take depositions in case of a contested election of a member of the House of Representatives of the United States, performs this function under the authority of Congress, and not under that of the State, and testimony taken in such a case stands on the same ground as if taken before a judge or officer of the United States, and a witness giving his testimony in such a case is accountable for the truth of his testimony to the United States only, and the power to punish such witness belongs exclusively to the Government in whose tribunals that proceeding is had.

This case affirms the same case in 38 Federal, 101. In the same report, on page 380, 33 Law Ed., 951, in the case

of Fitzgerald vs. Green, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of the United States, discharging upon habeas corpus Green from imprisonment under a judgment of the Court of Virginia, imposed upon him for unlawfully voting for presidential electors, and held, in substance, that the State has the power to punish for illegal and fraudulent voting for presidential electors, because Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors, but has left these matters to the control of the States.

In McPherson vs. Blacker, 146 U. S., page 1; 36 Law Ed., page 869, the Supreme Court of the United States maintained its right, under Section 709 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, to inquire into the method, upon proper petition, pursued by a State in the selection of its presidential electors; and after so maintaining its jurisdiction, determined that the Constitution did not provide that the appointment of electors shall be by popular vote, nor that the electors shall be voted for upon a general ticket, nor that the majority of those who exercise the elective franchise can alone choose the electors, and that the appointment and mode of appointment of the electors was exclusively left to the States under the Constitution of the United States, and upheld the Michigan Act, even though the same was questioned as being repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

In Pettibone vs. United States, 148 U. S., 197, 37 Law Ed., 419, the Supreme Court held that persons cannot be convicted of obstructing the administration of justice in a Federal Court under United States Revised Statute 5399, because of a criminal intent on their part to commit a crime against the State, in the deciding of which the Court affirmed the doctrine that United States Courts have no jurisdiction over offenses not made punishable by the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

In the case of Ohio vs. Brooks, 173 U. S., page 299, 43 Law Ed., page 699, the Supreme Court discharged, upon habeas corpus, Thomas, who was the Superintendent of the United States Soldiers' Home, and who had been convicted in the State Court for serving oleomargarine in violation of the State law, to disabled soldiers under his charge at the said