Weekly Trinity journal., 1872-02-24
ing to him from the enforcement of these

| laws.
Mr.. ALDRICH-I did not propose t.
say anything in regard to this thing
however, have real sympathy for the
man who is named in the bill. And as
understand, the circumstances and po.
siton of the matter are like this: This man
was acting under State law, to which the
United States law was opposed making his
acts unlawful. He chooses, and his friends
who back him up choose, to resist the
United States law; and the United States
Government arrested him for it. Then
he chooses to resist the United States in
the courts, and employs lawyer to car.
ry on that resistance. That is what gave
him this trouble and expense. Now he
comes and asks the State to pay the bill
| think that is placing the matter, as
understand it, before you in as few words
as possible. That the man has suffered
there can be no doubt. But 1 cannot
make up any good excuse, so far as l am
concerned, to recommend to this House
| could not while on the committee, and
| cannot ask them now-to pay him this
money as matter of right. If your sym
pathies are aroused, if you desire to meet
mans sufferings and give him the mon.
ey, all right. But as a matter of right
he has no claim on the State. His claim
is on his county, or on his friends who ad-
vised him or who backed him up. There
is no doubt but what he thought he was
doing right. There is no doubt but what
some of the friends who advised him
thought he was doing right. And there
is no doubt his advisers were wrong. II
was perhaps, raising the old doctrine OF
State rights-thinking that perhaps they
could put him forward to test it-in rails.
ing the question whether the United
States Government had any right to pas;
a law as against the State law.
Mr.. TINNIN-I would like to ask the
gentleman a question.
Mr.. ALDRIcH- Certainly.
Mr.. TINNIN-I would ask the gentle.
man if the statutes of this State did moi
require this officer to collect this tax g.?
Mr.. ALDRICH-That was certainly the
case. l do not propose to argue the
question l do not want to go into it. /
leave the matter as it is.
Mr.. CooPER-The gentleman from San
Francisco being like myself ii mem Der OF
the Committee on Claims, it may be in
order for me to state what was the action
of that committee. do not suppose there
has been single question which has been
looked into more thoroughly than the
matter of this claim of John jackson.
We concluded when we took the evidence
that there existed peculiar condition OF
things, and that it was Il question differ
ent from anything that had ever occurred
and that it was better, therefore, to sub
nit it to the House and let them act
upon it without recommending the pas
sage of the bill or otherwise. The com
mittee accordingly submitted it without
recommendation. Now, as l understand
this question-and by thinking a mo-
ment you will remember at the time
when this question came before the courts
it created remark, and caused the papers
all over the State to take position in re-
gard to it. Many of the strongest Re
publican papers Of this State at that time
doubted the validity Of that law. Many
of the ablest attorneys in the State did
the same. 1t was grave question, and
the law was violated, not in this case
alone-Mr. jackson not being the only
sheriff of the State who attempted to car
ry out the Constitution and the laws OF
the State-but there were many others
How then, sir, was this question to be it,
lustrated ? Were they to go and arrest
all who violated this law? In that case
there would have been heavy bill of ex,
pense. 1t seems to have been agreed
that there should be some test case, anC
selecting this case from amongst many
others, it was brought to trial, being 6
case surrounded by plain evidence thai
could be brought to bear to insure a con.
viction, and one to which could be at
tached no prejudice. Mr.. Jackson was
arraigned on trial and the law was estab
lished. AS for the question Of STATE
rights, it may in past political times have
been an open question, but it is not {
question in issue here. This is law
which was being violated every day by
officers of this State who believed tina
they had the right to violate it, and who
felt themselves bound by the oath they
had taken and by the instructions the
Supervisors had given them, to violate it
Something had to be done. Will yor
prosecute one man TO illustrate that ques
ton 1t seems to me that the subject Il
being placed in delicate position. TIL,
officer has taken an oath to do a certain
thing, and has given bonds to carry il
out and then comes q law of which
many people of this State know nothing
What, then, is that mans duty? lie ha;
taken a solemn oath to perform certain
duty, and is bound TO do so by bonds
1t is true, as the gentleman has remark
ed, it is a violation of the laws of the
United States which l and all are sworr
to uphold. But then, it is not the only
case. He was advised by an able attor
ney, and the trial was conducted by thu
very best talent and then in its decision
the question was settled. The petitioner
here has impoverished himself in repre-
senting the cause Of the State. The pc
titioner asks you only, according to thu
evidence which has been submitted, fol