liquor to Indians under the Indian Commerce Clause and held that the offense did not require that the sale take place on a reservation. In the License Tax Cases (1866), the Court upheld a federal tax on liquor licenses (which was enforced by criminal prosecution). Naptha mixing In United States v. Dewitt (1869), the Court held that the federal naptha mixing prohibition was unconstitutional (except in areas under exclusive federal jurisdiction) because it infringed on the police power of the states. Obstruction of the mail In United States v. Kirby (1868), the Court held that the arrest of a mail carrier under a bench warrant was not prohibited by the mail obstruction statute. Criminal procedure Constitutional issues Double jeopardy In Ex parte Lange (1873), the Court held that double jeopardy was violated by the imposition of a fine and imprisonment under a statute that authorized either fine or imprisonment. Since the defendant had already paid the fine, the Court held that the lower court could no longer even alter the sentence to mere imprisonment. Ex post facto law In Gut v. Minnesota (1869), the Court held that a retroactive change to Minnesota's criminal venue statute was not an unconstitutional ex post facto law. Incorporation In Pervear v. Massachusetts (1866), the Court held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment did not apply to the state governments, and—in the alternative, assuming that it did—a fine of $50 and three months hard labor was not an excessive punishment for bootlegging. And, in Twitchell v. Pennsylvania (1868), the Court held that the criminal procedure provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments did not apply to the state governments. Other Sufficiency of an indictment In United States v. Cook (1872), the Court held that—where a criminal statute both defines an offense and its exceptions—a criminal indictment must plead facts taking the case out of the exceptions if and only if the exception is inseparable from the definition of the offense. The Court held that the embezzlement statute at issue contained no such exceptions, and that the Crimes Act of 1790's statute of limitations was not such an exception. Special verdicts In United States v. Buzzo (1873), a prosecution for tax evasion, the Court held that where the jury is instructed to deliver a special verdict, the element of intent must be specifically included within the special verdict. Statutory venue In United