Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/896

 STATE V. GRAND TRUNK BY, 889 �119; McDowell v, Peyton, 10 Wheat. 454; Shelby v. Guy, 11 Wheat. 361; McCheny v. Silliman, 3 Pet. 270; Harpending v. Dutch Ckurch, 16 Pet. 455; Smith v. Kernocher, 7 How. 198; Nesmith v. Sheldoh, Id. 812; Faw Ransaler v. Kearney, 11 How- 297; Webster v, Cooper, 14 How. 488, 504; Leffmgweïl v. ïFar- ren, 2 Blk. 599; Gelpcke v.City Dubuque, 1 Wall. 176 ; Chrïsty V. Pridgeon, 4 Wall. 196; iVic/wfe w.Levy, 5 Wall. 433; C%o/ Ilichmand y. Smith, 15 Wall. 429. �So closely and carefuUy has this rule been foUowed that if the highest court of a state adopta new views as to the proper construction of a state statuts, and reverses ita former decision, the federal courts -will follow the latest decision of the state court. Leffingwell v. Warren, 2 Black, 599; United States v. Morison, 4 Pet. 124; Green v. Neal'a Lessee, 6 Pet, 291. �The supreme court of New Hampshire, the highest court of the state, having, in this case, given a construction to the statute that it is, in substance, a penal statute, and that a suit or proeeeding upon it is a criminal proceeding, for an infraction of a law of the state, this court must adopt that construction. If so, it is quite clear this cause must be re- manded to the state court. This court had no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of it when commenced. It has not now. The statute of 1875, (section 2, c. 137, vol. 18, p. 470, U. S. St. at Large,) under which it is claimed the removal of this cause is authorized, provides only for the removal of causes of a civil nature. This is criminal. There is no doubt that when there is proper authority for it a criminal case may be removed from a state court to the federal courts. It was so held in Tennessee v. Davis, 100 U. S. 257. But there is no provision for the removal of a cause like this under the act of March 3, 1875, on which the removal depends. The removal of the case of Tennessee v. Davis was under an entirely different stat- ute and for an entirely different reason. In that case arose the question or right of the federal authorities to protect their of&cers in the discharge of their duty. Here is only a claim of citizenship or alienage, and it cannot be pretended, success- fully, that the statute makes provision for the removal of a criminal cause on that account. ����