Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1873-02-01
THE roMENY cAsE.
Igs .s. E 90 p%s., p 81 iss %a'

=
raat fer Want OF } Jurisdiction.
In the Criminal Court to-day Judge
Elippin delivered an elaborate aud
lengthy written opinion IN the case Of
the State Of Tennessee vs. ]. NJ, Tom
eny. The Judge stated that a warrant
was issued against j. NJ. Tomeny by n
State officer, charging Tomeny with EN-
bezzloment or fraudulent breach Of
trust while Marshal OF the United States
in 1869. II was charged that be seized
the goods Of a bankrupt, sold them and
wilfally aud fraudulently embedded the
proceeds. II was n question Of jurisdic-
ton that was before the Criminal Court,
aud resolved itself into two propositions.
First-Has the State the constitutional
power by lis legislation 70 reach such q
casel Seeond-Has the State passed
such law 10 reach such an oaense2
Judge Flippin discussed the first propo-
sition at length, with reference to the
power Of sovereignty abridged on the
adoption Of the Federal Constitution, and
cited the famous States Rights section
Of the Tenth amendment, viz; " The
powers not delegated to the United
States blythe Constitution, nor prohibited
by il to the States, are reserved to the
States respectively, or 70 the people. :"
Judge Flippin cited numerous authori-
ties from "Story on the Constitution
"The FederaIist, '''d Brightley's Digest"
aud numerous Reports, on the judicial
power Of the United States, and its ex-
elusive jurisdiction over crimes commit
ted by officers Of its own courts. But the
Congress Of the United States having the
power to pass laws Furnishing parties
guilty Of the crime Of fraudulent appro.
priation Of moneys, and not having done
so, the question arises--have the State
courts Jurisdiction in these cases2 This
case, II the facts are true, is one Of Off
eial misconduct aud not individual mis-
conduct over which the State courts
would certainly have jurisdiction
Judge Flippin recited at length the re;
spectiye powers OF the State and United
States Courts on these points, The
Court held that neither can have any
right to interfere with or control the
operations of the other, aud that the
Court was forced to the conclusion that
the exercise of jurisdiction in the State
Courts ike the one under consideration
would be repugnant to the acts of Con-
gress covering such cases, incompatible
with the dignity, efficiency and vitality
of the Federal Courts, and consequently
unconditional aud void gaHGES
On the question whether the State
had passed law or had attempted to
do so, to reach the case under considera-
ton, Judge Flippin entered into a lengthy
discussion, citing numerous authorities,
and concluded by saying: We do not
think our statutes Of embezzlement were
designed to reach case like the one
under consideration"
Upon the question as to whether the
defendant was guilty of a fraudulent
breach of trust under the State statute,
Judge Flippin held, that the things or
goods must have been delivered in con-
tdence Here the goods we're seized and
sold, and proceeds received by opera
ton of law, and in no sense can it right
fully be said that they were delivered to
said j. NJ. Tomeny in confidence and
the court did not think fair eonstruc-
ton of the statute would embrace such
cases. Judge Flippiu closed his learned
and exhaustive opinion as follows;
We then conclude, firstly, upon an
examination of the statutes, that the
Legislature had no constitutional power
to enact a law to punish case like this;
and, in the second place, if the power
were not wanting, the provisions of the
statutes when rightflllly interpreted,
fail to meet the case under considera-
ton. The warrant will be dismissed.
q