Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1855-02-25
THE BILL FOR THE PROTECTIOS OF
OFFICERS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND THE DEBATE THEREON.

AND THE DEBATE THEREON.
A debate, Of an animated and exciting char
acter, took place in the Senate of the United
States on Friday, on the bill reported by Mr..
Toucey, Of Connecticut, ito protect officers and
other persons acting under the authority of the
United States" The propriety Of such provi-
sion is SO plain as to render it matter Of sur
prise that even the most extreme Freesoilers
of the North could object to its adoption, and
indeed in the abstract which we have seen OF
the debate there seems to be no plausible
ground of objection urged to the bill. The
provision of the Constitution that the judicial
power of the United States shall extend to all
cases in law and equity arising under this Con-
stitution, the la,cs of the United States, &c, is
conclusive that, as far as the question imme-
diately involved in this bill is concerned, the
federal courts have jurisdiction. 1t is true
that in many cases, there is a concurrent jurs-
diction of the State courts with the Federal
courts, as, for example, in suits or controver-
sizes between citizens of different States. In
such cases there might be good ground of OBJ
lection to the removal of the suit from court
of State, where it originated to Federal tri.
-bunal. But here the case is entirely different.
The party defendant is an officer of the United
States, and is acting in that capacity at the
time the cause Of action accrued. 1t is, there
fore, plain that the action should be tried in
that court which, from the very nature of the
case, has cognizance Of the offense, is the judi
eial expounder of the law under which it was
committed, and the tribunal to which the Off
Ger is himself responsible.
Suppose, for example, that an action is com
menced in State court against United
States officer for.violation Of official duty-and
a judgment against him for damages is rem
dered. Now such q judgment would result in
the forfeiture Of his official bond, and in case
of his own insufhciency an action would lie
against his securities in that bond. But by a
provision of the act Of 1889 establishing the
judicial system, the bond is given, and the Off
cial oath taken before a federal judge-the
bond is fled and the oath registered in fed
eral court. How then can an action against
the securities in this bond lie in the State
court2 This simple example illustrates the
the principle that the officer for malteasance in
Office is amenabe to the court Of which he is
an oflicer--and if the ground Of action as con-
templated in the bill under consideration be
son account of any act done under any law of
the United States, or under color thereof or for
or on account of any right, authority, claim or
title set up by such officer or other person un.
der any law Of the United States then. the
tribunal before which such officer or person
should be tried, should be the court from which
he holds the power or claims the right and au-
thority.
But we need not look so far for reasons in sup
port of this law. The objection and the only
objection urged to the passage of the bill was
that it would further the execution of the fugi-
tive slave law; that it would tend to support
the office of the United States in the admin.
istration of the law. From this we infer, and
indeed the strong language of certain Northern
Senators establish the fact, that opposition to the
fugitive slave law is the ground of objection,
and that, without this law, hopes are entertained
of successfully defeating its execution.
1t is easy to see how this is to be done. An
officer whose only offence is in the conscious
discharge of duty, and in the determination to
carry into effect the laws which he is sworn to
execute, is handed over to the tender mercies
of State court, composed of men hostile to
the execution Of the law. We have ready
example furnished US Of the operation Of this
principle. Judge Loring is to be elected from
his judicial station by the Legislature of Mas
sachusetts, because he conscientiously executed
law Of the United States 1t is easy to predict,
if this be the cause of his removal, what will
be the character of his successor. The same
causes will induce the appointment Of a sheriff
of similar principles. A jury selected under
such auspices will be ,cell qualified to pass upon
the merits Of case involving constitutional
exercise Of power An officer Of the United
States, however just in the administration OF
his trust and duty, will carry the fugitive slave
law into effect at his peril at peril of his life,
liberty or property.
1t is proper 10 add, that there we're those in
the Senate from the North who, on this occa
sion, as heretofore, brayely espoused the cause
Of the Constitution. Senator Toucey, Of Con-
necticut, introduced the bill and ably and nobly
advocated its passage. 1t met with warm
support from Senator Douglas, ever the able
defender Of the Constitution and the rights Of
the States. Others, too, who did not engage
in the discussion, recorded their names in IA
vor Of a measure to carry out one Of the solemn
guarantees Of the Constitution.
We regret a renewal Of the slavery agitation,
but the action Of certain of the Northern
States on this subject renders it necessary that
something must be done to carry into effect the
law Of the United States. One Of the Senators
who engaged in the discussion OF this question
Friday, said that, in Lia opinion, tho rrnvi-