Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1833-03-23

ron Of revenue would De ImprACucaoie. Nhat-
ever latitude may be allowed in the selection OF
means necessary and proper to carry into effect
the granted powers of Congress, we believe no
one has vet Imagined, that plain provision OF
the Constitution may be violated, as means OF
carrying into effect power granted by another
provision. Although we NAV c0ncede the pow
err of Congress. for sufficient cause and IN good
faith, to abolish one port of entry and establish
another, yet we of course cannot c0ncede thar II
may delegate this power, or that the sovereign
act of the State, for the vindication of her re-
served rights, constitutes sufficient cause or that
this act has been done in good faith
The provisions Of the act, that all property IN
the hands of anv officer or other person. detained
under any revenue law, shall be subject only to
the orders and DEGREES of the Courts OF the Unit
ed States, plainly enacts that II shall not be SUD-
ect to any process. order or decree OF the Courts
of the State We have heretofore been accus-
toned to regard our superior Courts as having
Jurisdiction over all persons and all property
within the limits of the State. This jurisdiction
ia of course superseded, whenever any other
Court of concurrent jurisdiction has possession
or custody of any cause or any property. But
that ministerial, executive officer, or that pro.
perty ia mis- hands, should be exempted from the
jurisdiction and authority OF State Courts, we
believe to be unprecedented in our legislation.
and without any shadow Of constitutional autho.
rity. One Of the most extraordinary and excep'
tonable provisions OF the act, appears to be that
authorizing the removal. previous to trial, OF SUITS
or prosecutions from the State Courts, upon Aft
davlt made, and a certificate OF the opinion OF
some counsellor or attorney to the same effect,
that the suit prosecution was tor or on account
OF any act done under the revenue laws OF the
United States, or under color thereof, or Tor Or
on account of any right. authority or title, set up
OF claimed by any officer or other person, under
any such law Of the United States. IL there be
any violation of the law of the State; it there
BIZ a wrong done to person or property within the
limits of the State, have not the Courts of the
State jurisdiction of that matter? BY what au.
thority does the Congress of The United States
limit that jurisdiction? What shadow Of consli
tutional provision is there to sanction this mnst
iayrant usurpa,lon? True. such violation of
the law Of the State may sometimes he Ius'ihed,
as being done in execution Of a constitutional
law Of the United States; but this Is a matter ct
defence, and to be tried as every other defence
il 10 he tried, aud caa have no Eject in oustng
the Jurisdiction or in giving TO the Courts of the
United States original jurisdiction OF Offences
against the Stale laws So any person is author.
;Zed to bring suit n the Courts OF the United
States f.r any -; 20 person or property, for
ur on account -. .l az. done in execution ot the
revenue laws constitution gives to the
Courts Of th- 81, States jurisdiction Of all
cases in law So tIu',y n,isirg 'i7dcr The Con
stifution ard L.n, O., tie Uni'ed Mates. Anas
sau!t or taa =. r>lo lr re,v,s> tu property l. a
violation o. ~ i.vs - lie S,ars. Can II make
diff, enc t,sI violation u me Safe law was
prorokcd ~ au oct hone under color ct execut-
nu the Law Ut tae Uu''rd States? the pr"tec.
lion Of rcr.rpS aud property la. heretofore been
suapospo ,hr province Of he States In assum-
irg t" itscf lN., res taocuon. the Federal Gu
yarnmenr n,!l 1'es mus' c!ear'N ITS tendenc, to
engrnss Al power ard cnoyro al STATE authority
|, is plain. l'kewsr, from rhe various pr"vi.
Sions It The act, that such SUITS are intended 30
b. allowed against persons acting III execution
of ne process. Of the State Courts. Judgments
cf those Courts are declared 10 be void. and per
sons and property exempted from their jursllc-
ton.
Ii is not only our Law, but part of the law Of
the civilized world that the judgment Of Court
of competent jurisdiction is valid until 1t be re-
versed bv competent authority. The Judgment
of a Superior Court of general jurisdiction
can never be void tor want Of jurisdiction
When there are courts OF concurrent
jurisdiction. that which obtains possession
of the cause is entitled to retain it; its pro-
cess must be respected, and all other jurlslicto
is excluded. II is true that the Judgments OF
courts of limied jurisdiction ,and such are the
Courts of the Uniied States, and SO they them
selves have determluedl are v"ld. it the jursdlc
ton be transcribed. This distinction would
seem to determine whether sovereignty is to be
attributed to the State or to the Federal authori-
ty. Hitherto, it has never occurred to anv one
to doubt that an officer, acting in execution of
the process of court of general jurisdiction, and
all persons acting under his direction, are ex.
empteh from al, responsibility for that act. He
is bound, under the highest sanction, to execute
that process; and shall he be punished for per
forming his duty?
Ii this act were submitted to, the entire ADM.
nistration Of the criminal justice of the State
might be interrupted, and it is not too much to
say, that the State governments would be rem.
dered lmpractcable. The worst criminaI-one
stained with the guilt Of murder-upon making
an affidavit, which no criminal would hesitate to