Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-12-27

0FEcLlL.
Opinions of the Supreme CoRrt OF the
state of Tennessee, as Knoxville, Seps
tembcr Term, 1883.
John Sizem0Te vs.. The Sta.e.

Opinions of the Supreme courf OF tn
state Of Tennessee, as knoxville, Sep.
John szeInore vs.. TAe state.
The plaintiff in error was indicted and convicted
in the Circuit Court of Washington county, for
frauduently and feoniously keeping in his posses
sion counterfeit coin of the denomination of quarter
and half dollars. Neither the evidence charge
of the Court is given, but the appeal in error
is from the judgment OF the Court overruling the
motion in arrest.
There are three counts in the indictments and the
conviction is upon the second The first reason in
arrest is upon the supposed insufciency in the law
of this count The imperfectOn relied upon Is that
it does not charge that the base coin was kept in
possession a1ih intent 10 pass the same In all other
respects it is admitted tine count is good So the
only question this point is whether that omission
viates the indictment To sustain the position that
it does, referred tc the case of Fergus
The State, Yerger 3i5 and of Owen VS.. The State
Sneed, 49j. That was certainly the well settled
rule previous to the act of 1872, chapter Is. In
section D. Of that act it is provided that In indict
ments for fraudulenty keeping in possession, con
cealing, counterfeit money, bank notes, it shall
not be necessary to aUer III the indictment that the party
charged intended 10 pass or impose The cOeGdafenoney
bank notes upon the community good money; but
it must appear in proof that the counterfeit mo-
ney notes were so possessed and concealed
with fraudulent intent that they should get into cir
cuation and that the party charged knew the money
or notes were counterfeit This act not brought
to the notice of the court in the late of Owen
The State, and the law settled iii the case in
6 Yerger, was incidentally recognized. 1t was not
the point on which the turned and perhaps for
that reason. not particularly examined.
The statute of 1872 which Is in substance con
tanned in the Code, l3j certainly this ndict
| inent and sustans the judgment of the Court in
overriding the motion in arrest, far as it rests
upon that ground. There is no argument against
PLAN statute 1t puts end to reasoning, and stops
investigation Unless indeed it be in conflict with
the constitution, and them of course, it is nullity.
1t is argued that such is the here. In the 9th
Section of the lst Article of our Constitution, it Is de-
clared " that in all criminal prosecutions the ac-
cused hath a right to be heard by himself and his
counsel: to demand the nature and cause of the dccuS1
ton d1daSt him, and to have copy thereof" But
1t must be left to the Legislature to prescribe what
shall constitute the "accusatiOn-in what form the
crime shall be charged \ copy of this he has
constitutional right to demand The constitution has
not prescribed the form in which the accusation
shall be made This is left for the Legislature and
| it has performed that duty in this regard.
2 The second reason in arrest is that the offence
of cOunterfeiting the coin of the United States or
of passing or keeping it with the intent to circulate
it. are offences against the United States and eXclu-
svely cognizabe in the Federal Courts. The power
to coin money and regulate the value thereof is
confined to the general government, and Congress
doubtless has the power to provide for the punish
ment of all who may counterfeit It. But there Is
no prohibition upon the States to do the same. The
| two governments are separate and distinct. Both
are sovereign IN the spheres assigned TO them. Ii
the power to CON money is confined to The general
government as it is such coin is intended for the
use of the people of all the States; and is in fact
the only constitutional currency and lawful tender.
If this be So there can be no in denying to
the States the power of protecting their citizens
against the debasement of the universal currency,
by the punishment of all the offenders against it.
within its borders. Such power has been exercis-
ed in this State from its organization, and perhaps
| the same authority has been assumed in all the
| States. If it be an offence against the United
States, to counterfeit the public coin, which may be
punished in its courts it is the less offence
| against the States, where the same coin is made
| the circulating medium and lawful tender in pay
| ment Of debts. The two authorities not incom-
patible, is the anomalous. But it is not in
tenGe now to go into argument on this point
the jurisdiction has been too long exercised, and
too well estabs shed to be questioned. If Congress
could restrict the power of the States this sub
ject which is not admitted it has not attempted to
do so. We referred by the Attorney General to
l Bishop on Criminal Laws, sections Gl0 and 6l3
and I'd volume of same sections from 227 to 239,
where this subject is fully treated, and the juris
diction of the States sustained.
There l. no error in the judgment. and it is af-
firmed CAEUTIERs
\ true copy. Test: c. W. NELSON, Clerk.