5. To accomplish the first object, it was accord ingly enacted by the fourteenth section that writs of habeas corpus should in no case extend to pri soners in jail, unless where they were in custody under or by color of tbe authority of the United States, or were committed for trial before some court of the same, or it was necessary that they should be brought into court to testify.
This important restriction was intended to leave to the state authorities the absolute and exclusive administration of the state laws in all cases of im prisonment; and no instance has ever occurred in which this act has been disregarded. On the con trary, its observance has been emphatically enjoined and enforced. 21 How. 523, 524.
6. By the thirty-fourth section of the same act, it was enacted that the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States should otherwise require or provide, were to be regarded as rules of decision in trials of common law, in the courts of the United States in eases where they applied. This provision has received examination and interpret ation in the following, among the more recent cases:-7 How. 40; 8 id. 169; 14 id. 504; 17 id. 476; 18 id. 502, 507; 20 id. 393, 584.
7. And while the United States courts follow the interpretation given to the laws of the state by their highest tribunals, yet in case of conflict ing decisions, or in the absence of decisions at the time of consideration by the United States courts, the rule is, of course, modified. 5 How. 139; 18 id. 599.
The decisions of state courts upon questions of general commercial law are held not to be binding upon the United States courts. 18 ,How. 520. Nor are they binding upon questions of the general principles of equity jurisprudence. 13 How. 271.
8. In clothing the United States courts with sufficient authority to carry out the mandates of the constitution, their powers are made in certain eases to transcend those of the state courts. . The twelfth section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 declares that "If a suit be commenced in any state court against an alien, or by a citizen of the state in which the suit is brought against a citizen of ano.her state, etc., and the defendant shall, at the time of entering his appearance in such state court, file a petition for the removal of the cause far trial into the next circuit court, etc., it Shull then be the duty of the state court to accept the surety and proceed no further in the cause," etc.
This jurisdiction is held to be exclusive when it has once attached, from the moment of attaching. 15 How. 209, 211. It is based upon the supposition that poasihly the state tribunal may not be im partial between its own citizens and foreigners.
9. In like manner, by the act of 1833, where suit or prosecution is commenced in a court of any state figainst any officer of the United States, or other person, for or on account of any act done under the revenue laws of the United States or under color thereof, or for or on account of any right, authority, or title set up or claimed by such officer or other person under any such law of the United States, it is lawful for the defendant at any time before trial, upon a petition to the circuit court of the United States, etc., to remove
it to the circuit court, and the cause is thereupon to he entered on the docket of said court, and a certiorari to he issued to the state court, etc. 4 Stat. at Large, 632.
10. By the twenty-fifth section of the act of 1789 it is enacted "That a final judgment or de cree in any suit, in the highest court of law or equity of a state, in which a decision in the suit could be bad, Where is drawn in question the va lidity of a treaty or statute of, or an authority ex ercised under, the United States, and the decision is against their validity, or where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of, or an authority exercised under, any state, on the ground of their being repugnant to the constitution, treaties, or lays of the United States, and the decision is in favor of their validity, or where• is drawn in ques tion the construction of any clause of the con stitution or of a treaty or statute of or commiseion held under the United States, and the decision is against the title, right, privilege, or exemption spe cially set up or claimed by either party under such clause of the said constitution, treaty, statute, or commission, may be re-examined and reversed or affirmed in the supreme court of the United States upon a writ of error, the citation being signed by the chief justice or judge or chancellor of the court rendering or passing the judgment or decree com plained of, or by a justice of the supreme court of the United States, in the same manner and finder the same regulations, and the writ shall have the same effect, as if the judgment or decree complained of had been rendered or passed in a circuit court, and the proceedings upon the reversal shall also be the same, except that the supreme court, instead of remanding the cause for a final decision, as before provided, may, at their discretion, if the cause shall have been once re manded before, proceed to a final decision of the same and award execution. But no other error shall be assigned or regarded as a ground of re versal, in any such case as aforesaid, than such as appears on the face of the record, and immediately respects the before-mentioned questions of validity or construction of the said constitution, treaties, statutes, commissions, or authorities in dispute." It is no objection to the appellate jurisdiction under this section that one party is a state and the other a citizen of that state. 6 Wheat. 264.