It has already been pointed out that the state governments have no control over national banks except what has been granted to them by the federal government.1 Yet the state government may prohibit certain conveyances, and a national bank will be subject to the general law;2 but national banks are not covered by an act of the state which requires all corporations to file with a certain officer the name of a designated agent.3 Indirectly, too, the state governments can control national banks by their criminal laws where congress has not done so;4 and the highest authority has held that both the state government and the federal government can make the same act of a national banker a crime as to each sovereignty.5 But it is held that the statute of the national government as to usurious dealings of national banks is exclusive of any state legislation,6 as to a civil liability.

1 Commonwealth v. Farmers' Bank, 21 Pick. 542; State v. Union Bank, 4 Rob. (La.) 499.

2 Sea 5240, Rev. Stat, amended 18 Stat 329.

3 Act of Congress, June 30,1876, sec. 1,19 Stat. 63. 4 Sees. 5226 et seq., Rev. Stat U. S. 5 Price v. Abbott, 17 Fed. R. 506.

6 Washington Nat Bank v. Eckels, 57 Fed. R. 870.

7 Bowden v. Morris, 1 Hughes, 378, Fed. Cas. No. 1715. But the case is wrong.

1 Amended by 24 Stat 559. 2 See Sec. Sec. 32, 33, ante, and Sec. Sec. 191 and 201, post. 1 See Sec. 25, ante.