The weekly Minnesotian. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1852-1858, 1855-04-21

such officer or other person, under any law Of
the United States, and the defendant shall, at
the first term of such State court after the pass
age OF this act, or at the first term of such State
court after such suit shall be commenced, file
petition for the removal of the cause for trial
into the next circuit court to be held in the dis
trict where the suit is pending, or, il there be
no circuit court in such district then to the
district court invested with the powers of a
circuit court next to be held in said district,
and offer good and sufficient surety for his en-
terlng in such court. on the first day OF its ses
sion. copies of said process against him, and
also for his there appearing and entering spe-
clai bail in the cause, If special bail was orig
lnally requisite therein, it shall then be the
duty OF the State court to accept the surety, and
proceed no further in The cause and any bail
that may have been taken shall be discharged,
and the said copies being entered as aforesaid
in such court of the United States the cause
shall there proceed in the same manner as if it
had been brought there by original process;
and any attachment of the goods or estate of
the defendant by the original process shall hold
the goods or estate SO attached to answer the
final judgment in the same manner as by the
laws OF such State they would have been hol-
den to answer such final judgment had it been
rendered by the court in which the suit COM
menced and the party removing the cause
shall not be allowed to plead or give evidence
or any other defence than that arising under a
law of the United States as aforesaid"
What is proposed here is an innovatiOn-a
new thing-a thing unknown in the laws of the
country, since the States came into Federal
Union. That new thing is, that person, civ
lily prosecuted in State court, and justifying
under authority or color of law of the United
States, may GUST the State of its jurisdiction,
and remove the cause into court of the United
States. The first question which arises is, how
does it stand now? How has it hitherto stood?
What are the powers of the State Courts. and
what are their duties? What are the rights OF
parties in the State Courts? The Constitution
OF the United States binds together in Federal
Union thrty-one States. which, while they re-
main equal and qualified sovereignties, at the
same time constitute, in the aggregate, another
unqualified sovereignty. In so much as the
Chief business OF government is to protect the
rights of its citizens or subjects and as the per-
Torrance of that duty is, under free Govern
ments assigned to Courts of justice, and in so
much as the citizen is simultaneously the sub
ject of State Governme nt and of the Federal
Government the State Courts and the United
State Courts exercise cOncurrently or co-ordin-
ately the power of trying civil actions which
are brought against persons acting as officers
of the Federal Government. The public officers
OF the United States are, as we all know, numer-
GUS, and OF many classes-civil military, and
naval. They are engaged in executing laws
relating to the army, the navy, the customs, the
public lands, the post office, the judiciary, and
foreign relations. These agents may be called
upon to answer by any person who is agrieved,
either in the proper Federal Court or in Court
OF the State where the grievance happened. A
case which will illustrate the subject now oc-
ours me. Two or three years ago, successful
fully maintained in the Supreme Court of the
United States an action on the case, which had
been brought in Justices Court of the State
of New York, by woman, against POstmas-
ter, who had refused to deliver to her News
paper, on which the postage which could he
rightfully demanded was one cent. The Post
master pleaded before the Justice and be-
fore the Supreme Court of the State, and before
the Court of Appeals of the State, that none
but Federal Court could assume jurisdiction
in the case. When this plea was finally over
ruled in the Court of last resort in the State, he
appealed from that decision to the Supreme
Court of the United States. That Court affirm
ed tie decision of the State Court, and thus de-
fined the law to be, that United States officers
are amenable to civil actions in the State tri-
bunals. The law now remains as it was then
expOunded, and so it has always stood since the
wise and benefcent, because it surrounds the
citizen with double safeguard against extor-
ton, oppression, and every form OF injustice
committed by the authority or in the name of
the great central Executive Power.
The second question is, What is the nature
and extent of the change which you propose to
make by the bill which is under consideration?
That question is answered in a word. Whenever
the rights of citizen are invaded in any State
IN, fha TTpin hxro ho1l
mission, whether civil or military, from the
President of the United States he shall hence
forth have only single safeguard, instead of
that double panoply which has hitherto shield
ed him. and he must either forego redress, or
seek it in tribunal of the United States, in
which justice is administered by Judges ap-
pointed by the President and the Senate, and
irremovable, except on impeachment by the
House of Representatives, and therefore, re-
sponsible in the least possible degree to that
unwholesome Public Opinion which is the guar
dian of public liberty. Every postmaster and
his deputy, every marshal and his deputy, ev-
cry mailcOntractor, every stage-driver, every
tide-waiter, every lieutenant, every ensign,
and even every midshipman will be independ-
ent of State authority, and, when prosecuted
before q Magistrate or Court in the immediate
vicinage where his offence is committed, will
defy the party aggrieved and remove the ac-
tion commenced against him into Federal tri-
bunal, whose terms are rarely held, and then
in remote and practically inaccessible places
One-half of the power residing in the States is
thus to be wrested from them at a single blow,
and they will henceforth stand shattered mon
uments Of earlier greatness
No such change as this was anticipated by the
trainers of our Federal and State Constitutions.
They established the Federal Constitution chief
ly for the protection of the whole country
against foreign dangers. They gave TO it a
stronger Executive than they gave to the
States, respectively. They established the
State Constitutions chiefly for the protection
and defence of personal rights. They knew that
this Central Government would grow stronger
and stronger. and would ultimately become
an imperial power. 1t has realized that expect
alton, and has become even Continental
Power. Hitherto, the citizen has enjoyed his
double safeguard Why shall one-haf of his
panoply be now torn away from him? What
lawful and proper object of the Federal Gov
eminent has failed to be obtained by reason of
the exercise of Jurisdiction by State authorities
over officers of the United States? None
Why, then, shall the ancient law and custom
be changed? Is there danger that the citizen
will be too secure under the double protection
of the State Courts and OF the Federal Courts?
That was not the doctrine of the earlier days,
and that is not sound doctrine now.
demand, in the third place, reason for this
innovation. In reply, you urge, first, prece-
dent Precedents, in every country, are the
stairway of tyrants. What is this precedent
1t is law which protects the public Treasury,
by withdrawing from the State Courts certain
actions against collectors of the revenue Who