Opinion of the Court. pending before it, and to try the same right that was in issue there, the court proceeded: "It is equally well settled that a court of equity has no jurisdiction over the appointment and removal of public officers, whether the power of removal is vested, as well as that of appointment, in executive or administrative boards or officers, or is entrusted to a judicial tribunal. The jurisdiction to determine the title to a public office belongs exclusively to the courts of law, and is exercised either by certiorari, error or appeal, or by mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto or information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto, according to the circumstances of the case, and the mode of procedure established by common law or by statute. No English case has been found of a bill for an injunction to restrain the appointment or removal of a municipal officer. But an information in the Court of Chancery for the regulation of Harrow School within its undoubted jurisdiction over public charities was dismissed so far as it sought a removal of governors unlawfully elected, Sir William Grant saying: This court, I apprehend, has no jurisdiction with regard either to the election or a motion of corporators of any description.' Attorney General v. Clarendon, 17 Ves. 488, 491. In the courts of the several States the power of a court of equity to restrain by injunction the removal of a municipal officer has been denied in many well-considered cases," - citing Tappan v. Gray, 3 Edw. Ch. 450, reversed by Chancellor Walworth on appeal, 9 Paige, 507, 509, 512, whose decree was affirmed by the Court of Errors, 7 Hill, 259; Hagner v. Heyberger, 7 Watts & Serg. 104; Updegraff v. Crans, 47 Penn. St. 103; Cochran v. McCleary, 22 Iowa, 75; Delahanty v. Warner, 75 Illinois, 185; Sheridan v. Colvin, 78 Illinois, 237; Beebe v. Robinson, 52 Alabama, 66; and Moulton v. Reid, 54 Alabama, 320. The rule established in Sawyer's case was applied in Morgan v. Nunn, 84 Fed. Rep. 551, in which Judge Lurton said that "a court of equity will not, by injunction, restrain an executive officer from making a wrongful removal of a subordinate appointee, nor restrain the appointment of another." Similar decisions have been made in other Circuit Courts of Opinion of the Court. the United States; by Judges Pardee and Newman, in Couper v. Smyth, Northern District of Georgia, 84 Fed. Rep. 757; by Judge Kirkpatrick, in Page v. Moffett, District of New Jersey, 85 Fed. Rep. 38; by Judge Jenkins, Northern District of Illinois, in Carr v. Gordon, 82 Fed. Rep. 373, 379, and by Judge Baker, District of Indiana, in Taylor v. Kercheval, 82 Fed. Rep. 497, 499. If the assignment of some one to duty as gauger at the Hannis distillery, in the place of the plaintiff, did not work his removal from office, a court of equity ought not to assume to control the discretion which under existing statutes the Executive Department has in all such matters. Interference by the judicial department in such cases would lead to the utmost confusion in the management of executive affairs. But the plaintiff contends that the assignment of some one to duty in his place at the Hannis distillery is, in effect, a removal of him from his office in violation of law, and that the object of the proceedings against him was to bring about that result. But, under the authorities cited, such proceedings cannot be restrained by a court of the United States, sitting in equity, and therefore the court below erred in passing the final decree which has been brought here for review. Without expressing any opinion upon other questions so fully discussed by counsel, we hold that the Circuit Court, sitting in equity, was without jurisdiction to grant the relief asked. The decree below is reversed, and the cause is remanded with direction to dismiss the bill. MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA took no part in the decision of this case. Opinion of the Court. WHITE v. BUTLER. WHITE v. RUCKMAN. APPEALS FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA. Nos. 540, 541. Argued March 21, 22, 1898. - Decided May 31, 1898. White v. Berry, ante, 366, affirmed and followed. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Assistant Attorney General Boyd and Mr. Joseph H. Gaines for appellants. Mr. Charles J. Faulkner for appellees. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. Butler, the appellee in the first of the above cases, was a storekeeper of the United States at the Hannis distillery at Martinsburg, West Virginia. Ruckman, the appellee in the second case, was also a storekeeper at the same distillery. The bill in each case is substantially like that in White v. Berry, ante, 366, just decided. The relief asked by Butler and Ruckman is the same as that asked by Berry, and the decree rendered in behalf of each was the same as that rendered in Berry's case. For the reasons stated in the opinion just delivered in White v. Berry, the decree in each of the above cases must be Reversed, and the causes remanded with directions to dis miss the bills. Opinion of the Court. THOMPSON v. MISSOURI. ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI. No. 623. Submitted April 21, 1898. - Decided May 31, 1898. The act of the legislature of Missouri of April 8, 1895, Missouri Laws 1895, page 284, providing that “comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute," is not ex post facto, under the Constitution of the United States, when applied to prosecutions for crimes committed prior to its passage. THE case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Charles F. Joy and Mr. Marion C. Early for plaintiff in error. Mr. Edward C. Crow for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. The record suggests many questions of law, but the only one that may be considered by this court is whether the proceedings against the plaintiff in error were consistent with the provision in the Constitution of the United States forbidding the States from passing ex post facto laws. Thompson was indicted in the St. Louis Criminal Court at its November term 1894 for the murder, in the first degree, of one Joseph M. Cunningham, a sexton at one of the churches in the city of St. Louis. Having been tried and convicted of the offence charged, he prosecuted an appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri, and by that court the judgment was reversed and a new trial was ordered. State v. Thompson, 132 Missouri, 301. At the second trial the accused was again convicted; and a new trial having been denied, he prosecuted another appeal to the Supreme Court of the State. That court affirmed the last judgment, and the present appeal Opinion of the Court. brings that judgment before us for reëxamination. State v. Thompson, 42 S. W. Rep. (Missouri) 949. The evidence against the accused was entirely circumstantial in its nature. One of the issues of fact was as to the authorship of a certain prescription for strychnine, and of a certain letter addressed to the organist of the church containing threatening language about the sexton. The theory of the prosecution was that the accused had obtained the strychnine specified in the prescription and put it into food that he delivered or caused to be delivered to the deceased with intent to destroy his life. The accused denied that he wrote either the prescription or the letter to the organist, or that he had any connection with either of those writings. At the first trial certain letters written by him to his wife were admitted in evidence for the purpose of comparing them with the writing in the prescription and with the letter to the organist. The Supreme Court of the State, upon the first appeal, held that it was error to admit in evidence for purposes of comparison the letters written by Thompson to his wife, and for that error the first judgment was reversed and a new trial ordered. 132 Missouri, 301, 324. Subsequently, the general assembly of Missouri passed an act which became operative in July, 1895, providing that "comparison of a disputed writing with any writing proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be genuine shall be permitted to be made by witnesses, and such writings and the evidence of witnesses respecting the same may be submitted to the court and jury as evidence of the genuineness or otherwise of the writing in dispute." Laws Missouri, April 8, 1895, p. 284. This statute is in the very words of section 27 of the English Common Law Procedure Act of 1854, 17 & 18 Vict. c. 125. And by the 28 Vict. c. 18, §§ 1, 8, the provisions of that act were extended to criminal cases. At the second trial, which occurred in 1896, the letters written by the accused to his wife were again admitted in evidence, over his objection, for the purpose of comparing them with the order for strychnine and the letter to the |