M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-04-16


chuset,s. PARKER, G. D., said:-
Among other things referred, by the
Constitution Of the United States, ia
the judiciary power ofthe nation, are
all cases in law and equity, arising
under the Constitution and laws OF
the Unitel States. Ii all action be
brought by a citizen of any State,
against another cilizsn of the same
State, the courts OF the United States
have not original jurisdiction but the
laetioa-must be. bought N the State
courts. BIT as the deIendantin such
suit Nay, in the act complained OF,
have been in rhe execution Of some law
the United States; Congress may by
law provide, that the suit shal! be re-
moved to the national courts, when
the dyioudan; shall make it appear
that his case is a proper subject OF
their jurisdiction.'
1t will be observed that the Chief
Justice puts the right Of the petition
cr to a transfer Of Jurisdiction upon
| the distinct ground that the act com.
Iplsincd Of in the original prosecution
in the State court, was committed by
the proper officer in the execution OF
some law OF tie United States. In
such case the court held that Congress
mly by law provide, that the suit shall
be removed to the federal courts,
when the petitioner shall make it np
pear that his case is proper subject
Of their jurisdiction. But how is It in
the case at bar! 1t is very clear that
the corpus deficit did not grow out OF
an attempt, 10y a proper officer; to
cary into execution a law Of the Con.
grc5s OF the United States, not even
'he provisions Of this act OF march 3,
1868; but arose in the execution Of ~
more order Of the President, author.
lied by no law Of congress, and which
order came aud was in direct conflict
with the constitution OF tie State OF
Ohio, and OF II law existing in pursu
anco thereof. Now what lo the legal
status Of the crime made by this pc
t.tioncr to remove his case into the
circuit court Of the United States
1t is, in my opinion, nothing more OF
less than an attempt to transfer the
criminal jurisdiction OF the State co'rta
into that Of the federal tribunals. Il
such is the scope and effect Of this
act Of March 81, 1868, or ii such
conld be the result Of its proper APP
pIication 10 the facts IN the case at
bar then | have 10 hesitation in pro.
nouncing Unconstitutional.
Might not congress as clearly re.
peal or abolish II State law creating
an ohtnce, and forbidden by the fed.
cral constitution, as to dictate to such
State the mode or place OF trial OF
such otftnsc9 Would they rot have
the same power to measure and fix
the punishment Of crime under State
law, or to enact II code Of evidence
or practice, for its Prosecution, as to
enact the forum for iJs trial ! 1t is
clear to my mind, that the sovereign
legislative power OF State has just
as exclusive jurisdiction over the 70,
rum, as they have the the exclusive
constitutional power to declare wat
shall he the crime itself. And if the
congress Of the Udited Stats have no
constitutional power to modify, abol.
ish, or repeal tac law Of a State, crea.
thug the crime. it is logical Geduc.
tion, in my opinion, from which there
is no escape, that they are equally
powerless in changing the forum oI
trial of such crime; unless the wrong
lul act charged grows ont OF the exc
cutlon Of, or is connected at the time
with aome law of the United States
In such case, there exists a concurlynt
jurisdiction over the subject, and oi
the two, the inferior must yield to
the superior jurisdiction, upon a ques
ton ol undisputeI sovereignty, and
where demand is made for trans
Ter Of the jurisdiction. Such were
the cases winch arose under the acts
Of congress OF 1915 and 1888. The
alleged wrongful acts done, were com.
united urder and by virtue OF the au,
thority OF these laws. Whether the
acts done by the inspectors aud col
lectors ol the customs, were trespaSs
es or not, depended upon the validity
OF tie laws which they were in the ac
Of executing. 1t WAS when such g
state Of things as this occurred, tha
congress declared, in and by thos,
statutes, that the defendants shUull
have right to the transfer Of the ca
ses brought against them in the StatC
couIts, TO the paramount jurisdiction
cannot perceive that the case .
Worcester vs.. the State of Georgia
5 Peters Rep. SIS, has any applica
zion to the question raised upon thi
petition in the case at bar. Tha
| yr,a A nnsn o,i,arn Al Stnfn lo,,, b,, ,I,