Pet. 511; Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U. S. 15; Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1, 42, 43; Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197. This case does not call for a discussion of the limitations of such power, nor require determination of the question whether the jeopardy clause became the law of the islands after the ratification of the treaty without Congressional action, as the act of Congress made it the law of these possessions when the accused was tried and convicted.

It is argued that in the act of July 1, 1902, Congress recognized the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts in section 9 as follows:

"SEC. 9. That the Supreme Court and the courts of first instance of the Philippine Islands shall possess and exercise jurisdiction as heretofore provided, and such additional jurisdiction as shall hereafter be prescribed by the government of said islands, subject to the power of said government to change the practice and method of procedure."

The argument is, that Congress intended to leave the right of appeal as provided by military order, No. 58, as amended by the commission, in full force.

But Congress, in section 5, had already specifically provided that no person should be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. While section 9 recognizes the established jurisdiction of the courts of the islands, it was not intended to repeal the specific guaranty of section 5, which is direct legislation pertaining to the particular subject. It is a well-settled principle of construction that specific terms covering the given subject matter will prevail over general language of the same or another statute which might otherwise prove controlling. In re Rouse, Hazard & Co., 91 Fed. Rep. 96, 100, and cases therein cited; Townsend v. Little, 109 U. S. 504, 512.

In ascertaining the meaning of the phrase taken from the Bill of Rights it must be construed with reference to the common law from which it was taken. 1 Kent, Com. 336. United

States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, in which this court said:

"In this, as in other respects, it [a constitutional provision] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 144 U. S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 624 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent's Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 274."

At the common law, protection from second jeopardy for the same offense clearly included immunity from second prosecution where the court having jurisdiction had acquitted the accused of the offense. The rule is thus stated by Hawkins in his Pleas of the Crown, quoted by Mr. Justice Story in United States v. Gibert et al., 2 Sumner, 19, 39:

"The plea (says he) of autre fois acquit is grounded on this maxim, that a man shall not be brought into danger of his life for one and the same offence more than once. From whence it is generally taken by all our books, as an undoubted consequence, that where a man is once found not guilty, on an indictment or appeal, free from error, and well commenced before any court, which hath jurisdiction of the cause, he may by the common law, in all cases, plead such acquittal in bar of any subsequent indictment or appeal for the same crime." In this court it was said by Mr. Justice Miller, in Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163:

"The common law not only prohibited a second punishment for the same offence, but went further and forbid a second trial for the same offence, whether the accused had suffered punishment or not, and whether in the former trial he had been acquitted or convicted."

And in as late a case as Wemyss v. Hopkins, L. R. 10 Q. B. 378, it was held that a conviction before a court of competent

jurisdiction, even without a jury, was a bar to a second prosecution.

In that case the appellant had been summarily convicted before a magistrate for negligently and by wilful misconduct driving a carriage against a horse ridden by the respondent, and was afterwards convicted on the same facts for unlawful assault. It was held that the first conviction was a bar to the second. In the course of the opinion it was said by Blackburn, J.:

"I think the fact that the appellant had been convicted by justices under one act of Parliament for what amounted to an assault is a bar to a conviction under another act of Parliament for the same assault. The defence does not arise on a plea of autre fois convict, but on the well-established rule at common law, that where a person has been convicted and punished for an offence by a court of competent jurisdiction, transit in rem judicatum, that is, the conviction shall be a bar to all further proceedings for the same offence, and he shall not be punished again for the same matter; otherwise there might be two different punishments for the same offence. The only point raised is whether a defence in the nature of a plea of autre fois convict would extend to a conviction before two justices whose jurisdiction is created by statute. I think the fact that the jurisdiction of the justices is created by statute makes no difference. Where the conviction is by a court of competent jurisdiction it matters not whether the conviction is by a summary proceeding before justices or by trial before a jury."

In the same case it was said by Lush, J.: "I am also of opinion that the second conviction should be quashed, upon the ground that it violated a fundamental principle of law, that no person shall be prosecuted twice for the same offence. The act charged against the appellant on the first occasion was an assault upon the respondent while she was riding a horse on the highway, and it therefore became an offence for which the appellant might be punished under either of two

statutes. The appellant was prosecuted for the assault and convicted under one of the statutes, 3 and 4, Wm. IV, c. 50, § 78, and fined, and he therefore cannot be afterwards convicted again for the same act under the other statute."

It is true that some of the definitions given by the textbook writers, and found in the reports, limit jeopardy to a second prosecution after verdict by a jury; but the weight of authority, as well as decisions of this court, have sanctioned the rule that a person has been in jeopardy when he is regularly charged with a crime before a tribunal properly organized and competent to try him, certainly so after acquittal. Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509. Undoubtedly in those jurisdictions where a trial of one accused of crime can only be to a jury, and a verdict of acquittal or conviction must be by a jury, no legal jeopardy can attach until a jury has been called. and charged with the deliverance of the accused. But, protection being against a second trial for the same offense, it is obvious that where one has been tried before a competent tribunal having jurisdiction he has been in jeopardy as much as he could have been in those tribunals where a jury is alone competent to convict or acquit. People v. Miner, 144 Illinois, 308; State v. Bowen, 45 Minnesota, 145; State v. Layne, 96 Tennessee, 668.

In United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310, it was held that a writ of error did not lie in favor of the United States in à criminal case, Mr. Justice Gray said:

"From the time of Lord Hale to that of Chadwick's case, just cited, the text-books, with hardly an exception, either assume or assert that the defendant (or his representative) is the only party who can have either a new trial or a writ of error in a criminal case; and that a judgment in his favor is final and conclusive. See 2 Hawk. c. 47, § 12; c. 50, §§ 10 et seq.; Bac. Ab. Trial, L. 9; Error, B; 1 Chit. Crim. Law, 657, 747; Stark. Crim. Pl. (2d ed.) 357, 367, 371; Archb. Crim. Pl. (12th Eng. and 6th Am. ed.) 177, 199.

"But whatever may have been, or may be, the law of

England upon that question, it is settled by an overwhelming weight of American authority that the State has no right to sue out a writ of error upon a judgment in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, except under and in accordance with express statutes, whether that judgment was rendered upon a verdict of acquittal, or upon the determination by the court of a question of law.'

In the course of the opinion Justice Gray cites, among other cases, Com. v. Commings and Same v. McGinnis, opinion by Chief Justice Shaw, 3 Cush. 212. In Archbold Cr. Pl. & Pr. Pomeroy's ed. 199, it was said: "There is no instance of error being brought upon a judgment for a defendant after an acquittal."

That the learned justice could not have intended to intimate that a second prosecution could be allowed by statute after an acquittal of the offense is shown by the subsequent decision of this court in United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, in which Mr. Justice Gray also delivered the opinion of the court. In that case an attempt was made to prosecute for the second time one Millard F. Ball, who had been acquitted upon a defective indictment, which had been held bad upon the proceedings in error prosecuted by others jointly indicted with Millard F. Ball, who had been convicted at the trial. The court below held Ball's plea of former jeopardy to be bad. reversed the judgment, and in the course of the said:

But this court opinion it was

"The Constitution of the United States, in the Fifth Amendment, declares, 'nor shall any person be subject to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.' The prohibition is not against being twice punished, but against being twice put in jeopardy; and the accused, whether convicted or acquitted, is equally put in jeopardy at the first trial. An acquittal before a court having no jurisdiction is, of course, like all the proceedings in the case, absolutely void, and therefore no bar to subsequent indictment and trial in a court which has jurisdiction of the offense. Commonwealth v. Peters, 12 Met. 387; 2 Hawk. P. C. VOL. CXCV-9