EX PAME HOUQHTON. 659 �By the act of April 21, 1806», provision was made for pun- ishiiig counterfeiting of the coin of the United States, and by that of February 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 secu- rities of the United States, counterfeiting coin of the United States and other countries, and passing counterfeit coin. Section 26, of the act of 1825, provided, as similar sections in each oi the other acts had done, that nothing in this act contained shall be eonstrued to deprive the courts of the indi- vidual states of jurisdietion 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 jurisdietion of the particular offences mentioned in those acts, the same as if congress had never exercised its power ta punish them. �A person was convicted under a statute of Ohio for passing counterfeit coin, and the conviction was upheld as not being contrary to the laws of the United States. Fox y. Ohio, 5 How. 410. So under a statute of Vermont, (State v. Randall, 1 Aik. 89,) andi a statute of Massachusetts, (Corn. v. Fuller, 8 Met. 313.) But upon demurrer to an indictment under the lawa of New Hampshire for punishing perjury generally, for perjury committed in proceedings under the bankrupt act of 1841, it was held that the state court had no jurisdietion over that offence. State v. Pike, 15 N. H. 83. In Moore v. Illinois, 14 How. 13, the respondent was couTicted of har- boring and secreting a negro slave contrary to a statute of Illinois. It was argned that the state court had no jurisdie- tion, because the laws of the United States provided for pun- ishing obstructing the owner of a negro slave in endeavoring to reclaim him, and concealing the fugitive after notice; but the jurisdietion of the state was maintained on the ground that the offences were different. �The supreme court of Massachusetts took jurisdietion of an embezzlement of a private special deposit in a national bank by an employe of the bank, on the ground that congress had not provided foi: that particular offence. Com. v. Tenny,21 ��� �
