98 Ninth Annual Report op the 



actions to recover statutory penalties are also within the 

 guarantee against double jeopardy. — Coffey v. United States, 116 

 U. S., 436; United States v. McKee, 4 Dillon, U. S., 128; United 

 States v. Slmpleigh, 12 U. S. App., 26. 



Until the passage of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal 

 Constitution it was well settled that the provision prohibiting 

 double jeopardy does not bind the States but applies only to 

 offenses against and trials under the laws of the United States 

 (Barron v. Baltimore, Peters U. S., 243; Fox v. Ohio. 5 How. U. 

 S., 410), although the early authorities expressed a contrary 

 opinion. — See People v. Goodwin, 18 Johnson, N. Y., 187. 



The same has been held with regard to each of the first ten 

 amendments of the Federal Constitution, which are commonly 

 known as the Federal Bill of Rights. 



While the legal effect of the amendment in the sphere of the 

 State Government was thus denied, the Federal Bill of Rights 

 were held in a number of authorities to have at least a moral 

 force even there. — James v. The Commonwealth, 12 S. & R. (Pa.), 

 235; Campbell v. The State, 11 Ga., 353. 



However, by the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Consti- 

 tution the first ten amendments have been made to operate 

 upon the States. 



This question was first raised in Spies v. Illinois, 123 U. S. 131, 

 and In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436; but in those cases it was not 

 decided. 



In O'Xeill v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, the majority of the court 

 held that the question was not properly raised, to authorize the 

 court to pass apon it. The minority, however, held that the 

 question was properly raised, and that the fourteenth amend- 

 ment did render the prior amendments applicable to the States. 

 See opinion of Mr. Justice Field, at p. 363, and Mr. Justice 

 Harlan, at p. 370, to which it is unnecessary to add anything. 



New York Authorities in Accord With the Federal Cases. 



The authorities in New York State, which mav be claimed to 

 hold that separate and independent statutes may constitu- 



