Opinion of the Court.

the seat of the national government, and the course of proceeding in their opening and counting them. Rev. Stat. §§ 131143; Acts of February 3, 1887, c. 90, 24 Stat. 373; October 19, 1888, c. 1216, 25 Stat. 613.

Congress has never undertaken to interfere with the manner of appointing electors, or, where (according to the now general usage) the mode of appointment prescribed by the law of the State is election by the people, to regulate the conduct of such election, or to punish any fraud in voting for electors; but has left these matters to the control of the States.

Sections 5511 and 5514 of the Revised Statutes, referred to in the order of the Circuit Court, were, as observed by this Court in Coy's Case, 127 U. S. 731, 751, made for the security and protection of elections held for representatives or delegates in Congress; and do not impair or restrict the power of the State to punish fraudulent voting in the choice of its electors.

The question whether the State has concurrent power with the United States to punish fraudulent voting for representatives in Congress is not presented by the record before us. It may be that it has. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371. But even if the State has no such power in regard to votes for representatives in Congress, it clearly has such power in regard to votes for presidential electors, unaffected by anything in the Constitution and laws of the United States; and the including, in one indictment and sentence, of illegal voting both for a representative in Congress and for presidential electors, does not go to the jurisdiction of the state court, but is, at the worst, mere error, which cannot be inquired into by writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Crouch, 112 U. S. 178;

In re Coy, 127 U. S. 756–759.

Judgment reversed, and case remanded for further proceed ings in conformity with this opinion.

Opinion of the Court.

POHL v. ANCHOR BREWING CO.

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.

No. 1269. Submitted January 10, 1890.- Decided March 24, 1890.

Under § 4887 of the Revised Statutes, which provides that "every patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country shall be so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent, or, if there be more than one, at the same time with the one having the shortest term, and in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years," a United States patent runs for the term for which the prior foreign patent was granted, without reference to whether the latter patent became lapsed or forfeited in consequence of the failure of the patentee to comply with the requirements of the foreign patent law. The case of Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, explained.

IN EQUITY. The case is stated in the opinion.

Mr. Grosvenor Lowrey, Mr. B. F. Thurston, Mr. Clarence A. Seward and Mr. J. M. Deuel for appellants.

Mr. Noah Davis for Edison Electric Light Company.

Mr. William J. Townsend for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit in equity, brought on the 16th of April, 1889, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, by Carl Pohl and Charles Zoller against the Anchor Brewing Company, a corporation, for the infringement of letters patent, No. 213,447, granted March 18, 1879, on an application filed January 3, 1879, to Carl Pohl, for an "improvement in barrel and cask-scrubbing machines." The patent is granted on its face for the term of seventeen years from March 18, 1879, "subject to the limitation prescribed by sec. 4887, Rev. Stats., by reason of German patent dated September 6, 1877, and French patent dated September

Opinion of the Court.

3, 1877." It appears, by translations into English of the German and French patents, annexed to the bill, that the German patent began to run September 6, 1877, and its longest duration was until December 12, 1891, and that the French patent began to run from September 3, 1877, and ran for fifteen years. The defendant put in a plea to the bill, setting forth that, at the time when Pohl applied for the United States patent, and at the time it was issued, he was a citizen of the empire of Germany; that, on the 6th of September, 1877, a German patent was issued to him for the same invention, for the term of fifteen years; that, under the German patent law of May 25, 1877, he was required to pay certain annuities on the German patent, and to work the invention in the empire of Germany in the manner and for the term specified by that law; that in default thereof, the term of the German patent would expire, and the rights and privileges of the patentee under it would become forfeited and cease; that Pohl neglected and failed to pay the annuities, and to work the invention in the empire of Germany in the manner and time required by that law, whereby and under the provisions of that law the German patent became forfeited in 1880, and the term thereof expired; that, by reason thereof, and under the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, the United States patent expired and the term thereof ended in 1880, and prior to the commencement of this suit, and, at the time it was brought, the plaintiff had no title to the patent and no rights under it; that, on the 3d of September, 1877, a patent was issued to Pohl for the same invention by the proper authorities of the government of France, for the term of fifteen years, and subject to the provisions of the French patent law of July 5, 1844; that, under those provisions, a patentee who failed to pay his annuity as required by that law, before the beginning of each year of the duration of his patent, or who failed to put his invention in working order in France within two years from the signature of the patent, or who ceased such working during two consecutive years, would forfeit all right under the patent; that Pohl neglected and failed to pay his annuity as required by such law, and failed to put his alleged invention in working

Opinion of the Court.

order in France within two years from the signature of the patent, and ceased such working during two consecutive years, whereby, under the provisions of the French patent law, the French patent was forfeited and the time and term thereof expired, and the rights of Pohl thereunder ceased; and that, under the provisions of section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, the United States patent expired and the term thereof ended prior to the commencement of this suit, and at that time the plaintiffs had no title to the patent and no exclusive rights thereunder.

The plea was set down for argument, and the Circuit Court, held by Judge Wallace, sustained the plea and dismissed the bill. To review that decree the plaintiffs have appealed.

Section 4887 of the Revised Statutes, on which the question involved in this case arises, reads as follows: "No person shall be debarred from receiving a patent for his invention or discovery, nor shall any patent be declared invalid, by reason of its having been first patented or caused to be patented in a foreign country, unless the same has been introduced into public use in the United States for more than two years prior to the application. But every patent granted for an invention which has been previously patented in a foreign country shall be so limited as to expire at the same time with the foreign patent, or, if there be more than one, at the same time with the one having the shortest term, and in no case shall it be in force more than seventeen years." The particular question involved is as to the meaning of the language of the second paragraph of the section.

The United States patent in the present case, granted March 18, 1879, was granted for an invention which had been patented previously, in September, 1877, in Germany and in France. It must be, therefore, by the terms of section 4887, so limited as to expire at the same time with that one of the two patents, German and French, "having the shortest term." The German patent on its face appears to have been granted for a term extending from September 6, 1877, to December 12, 1891; and the French patent for a term extending for fifteen years from September 3, 1877, that is, until September 3,

Opinion of the Court.

1892. If the United States patent does not expire until the end of the term expressed on the face of that one of the two patents, German and French, which has the shortest term so expressed on its face, it does not expire until the end of the term so expressed on the face of the German patent, namely, December 12, 1891; and so it had not expired when this suit was commenced, and has not yet expired. On the other hand, if it expired when the German patent became forfeited by reason of the facts alleged in the plea in regard to it, or when the French patent became forfeited by reason of the facts alleged in the plea in regard to it, the United States patent expired prior to the commencement of this suit.

The opinion of the Circuit Court in the present case, 39 Fed. Rep. 782, proceeded upon the view that the "term" of the foreign patent, referred to in section 4887 was not the original term expressed in it, but its period of actual existence; and that the United States patent expired when the foreign patent having the shortest term was terminated by its lapsing or becoming forfeited in consequence of the failure of the patentee to comply with the requirements of the foreign patent law. The Circuit Court regarded the decision of this court in Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Hammond, 129 U. S. 151, made in January, 1889, as requiring such decision.

The question involved in the present case has been decided by several of the Circuit Courts.

In Holmes Electrical Protective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co., 21 Fed. Rep. 458, in the Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, in August, 1884, it was held by Judge Wheeler, that section 4887 meant that the term of the United States patent should be as long as the remainder of the term for which the foreign patent was granted, without reference to incidents occurring after the grant of the foreign patent; that that section referred to the fixing of the term of the foreign patent, and not to the keeping of it in force; and that the term of the United States patent was not affected by the fact that a prior English patent had been suffered to lapse by the non-payment of a tax.

In Paillard v. Bruno, 29 Fed. Rep. 864, in the Circuit