delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a motion by the State of Minnesota to .retax the costs in this Court, which, by the judgment herein have been awarded against it. The Fairmont Creamery Company was charged with an offense under a statute of Minnesota before a justice of the peace, and was convicted. The judgment was affirmed on appeal to the, District Court for the county, and this was in turn affirmed by the Supreme Court of the State.
“. . . On consideration whereof, It is now here ordered and adjudged by this Court that the judgment of *72 the- said Supreme Court', in this cause, be, and the same is hereby, reversed with costs; and that this cause be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Supreme Court for further proceedings--not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.”
No application for rehearing was made during the term which ended on June 6, 1927. The mandate was issued, and filed with the Supreme Court of Minnesota in July, 1927. ■ The motion of defendant in error now before us was filed September 30, 1927.
Our Rule 30, effective July 1, 1925, provides that a petition for rehearing may be filed with the Clerk, in term time or in vacation, within forty days after judgment is entered, but not later. It is contended- by the plaintiff in error' that' the motion to retax costs would amend the judgment after the term and must be denied, for the rear son that this Court has no further jurisdiction in the matter.
Peck
v.
Sanderson,
A clause in a final judgment-affecting costs has been held to be substantial and not within the court’s power to change after the term.
Jourolman
v.
East Tennessee Land Co.,
But we are not content to dispose of the motion on this ground alone, even though it be adequate, for the main question is one of much importance in the every day practice before us and ought to be decided now. The argument for the state is that this is a criminal case; that costs in criminal proceedings are only a .creature of statute, and that this court has no power to award them against a state unless legislation of the state has conferred it. This is the rule as to the state court* in Minnesota.
State
v.
Buckman,
That the’sovereign is not to be taxed with costs in either civil or criminal cases by rule of court without a statute
*74
is undoubtedly true. Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of
United States
v.
Barker,
For'many years, costs have been awarded by this Court against states. Under the judicial article of the Constitution, the original jurisdiction of this Court includes suits to which a state is a party. There have been many boundary and other cases brought here by one state against another in which costs have been awarded against .one of them arid often against both. Usually they have been divided, but if the case proves to be a “ litigious case,” so-called, all the costs have been assessed against the defeated party.
State of North Dakota
v.
State of Minnesota,
It is insisted that, while' in civil cases costs may be awarded against a state as a litigant before this Court, the rule does not apply in criminal cases. As the objection to taxing costs against a state has been because of its sovereign character, and that, as we have said, has no application to a state as a litigant in this Court, there would seem to be no more reason for immunity iñ a. criminal case than in a civil one. But it is pointed out that this distinction has been made by this Court in the case of United States ex rel. Phillips v. Gaines, 131 U. S., Appendix, clxix. That was a writ of error from this Court on a certificate of division between the Judges of the United States Circuit Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. It was a mandamus case brought to. command the comptroller of the state to issue his warrant to the state treasurer for the payment of a bill of costs of an indictment against Phillips, one of the relators. In 1870, Phillips had been indicted in the county of Putnam for the murder of one Ford! Phillips presented his petition to the state court, praying for the removal of the indictment into the Circuit Court of the United States by virtue of three Acts of Congress, the first, of March 3, 1863, c. 81, 12 Stat. 755, 756, § 5, the second, of May 11, 1866, c. 80, 14 Stat. 46, § 3, and the last, of February 5, 1867, c. 27, 14 Stat. 385. Their purpose was to enable any officer of the United States, military or civil,' charged with a crime, against the state, for acts done under color of federal *76 authority, to remove the prosecution, into the Circuit Court of the United States for trial by the state prosecuting officers in that court. In 1874, the State of Tennessee, by her attorney, appeared and dismissed the case, agreeing that the costs should be adjudged against the state. The Circuit Court'accordingly rendered the. judgment for •costs. A warrant-for the payment of the costs was demanded from the'state comptroller and refused. Mr. Justice Strong, in deciding the case, said:
“ Costs in- criminal proceedings are a creature of statute, and a court -has no power to award them unless some statute has conferred it.”
He pointed out that this was the-rule in the State of Tennessee, Mooneys v. State, 2 Yerger, (Tenn.) 578, but referred to an Act of 1813 of that State in which it was provided that in all criminal'cases above the gradé of petit -larceny, where the defendant was acquitted, costs should be paid out of the treasury of the State. . There were certain statutory prerequisites before they .-could be paid by the. comptroller. -The judgment of this Court turned on the fact that such prerequisites had not been complied with. The language of the court indicated that costs could only be awarded in accordance with the Statute of -the State of Tennessee. We do not think that the case on its facts is. an authority here. There- was a peculiar, and exceptional situation. The case was a prosecution by the State of Tennessee, and its trial by the state was bodily transferred to the environment of the Circuit Court of the United States. All incidents of a trial of the case in the state court were regarded as following the .case in the federal court. The question of. costs was,Therefore, thought to be governed by the same rule as it would have been in-the state court.
Without reconsidering the correctness of that ruling, we think- the case here to be different. The costs here incurred are in a litigation brought by writ of error into *77 this Court to test the validity under the Federal Constitution of a statute of the state. The incidents of the hearing are those which attach to the regular jurisdiction of this Court. We have had our Clerk make an examination of óur records reaching back to 1860. There were one hundred twenty-nine cases examined, which do- not include the boundary cases between states on the Original docket' already referred to. ‘ It thus appears that since tha/t date the invariable practice has been when the judgment has been against a state in both civil and criminal cases to adjudge costs against it, under the Rule which is now § 3, Rule 29, of our present Rules. That rule in different' forms, and under a different number, has been in force since the February term, 1810.. Dewhurst, Rules of Practice in the U. S. Courts (2d ed.) 153. It has been in its present form since the January Term, 1858. See St. Louis and San Francisco R. R. Co. v. Spiller, post, p. 156. We think that the rule, construed by long practice, justifies us in treating the state just as any other litigant and in imposing costs upon it as such, without regard to.the inferencés sought to be drawn from United States ex rel. Phillips v. Gaines, supra.
If specific statutory authority is needed, it is found in § 254 of the Judicial Code, which first appeared in the Act of-Match 3, 1877, c. 105, 19 Stat. 344, and was reenacted March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1087, 1160. It provides that there shall bé “ taxed against the losing party-in each and every cause pending in the Supreme Court ” the cost of printing the record, except when the judgment is against the United States. This exception of the United States in' the section with its emphatic inclusion of every other litigant shows that a state as litigant must pay the costs.of printing, if it loses, in every case civil or criminal. These costs constitute a'large part of all the costs. The section certainly constitutes pro tanto statutory authority to impose costs genera y against a state if defeated;
The motion is denied.