The Hillsborough recorder. [volume] (Hillsborough, N.C.) 1820-1879, 1877-05-23
JUDGE coz OPINION.

We regret 10 diifer from a. gentleman
We SO highly esteem, inths opinion.he gave
at Greensboro 10 the case Of the state vs..
jesse II. Hoskins & others involving the
the right Of transfer Of cases to which the
State is party. 10 the jurisdiction Of the
United States Courts. The defendants were
indicted foran assault and battery commit
ed 10 their capacity as revenue officers. and
claim. as such. exemption from the jurisdic-
ton Of the State Courts, and responsibility
to the United States Courts only, under
the law set forth in the Revised Statutes
providing for such transfer.
Judge Cox bases his decision upon the
surrender Of State sovereignty which North
Carolina made whom she ratified the articles
Of th q Constitution Of the United States.
True, their was certain surrender Of
ssy,eignty. for that unnecessary to give
national government power So enforce its
national character. But in regard to the
jurisdiction Of tue Courts. that could only
embrace such surrender Of sovreigntyas ex,
tended over the interests Of com merce and
navigation, Of coinage. aud pustal aff,irs. Of
relations with foreign powers and Of utter
matters Of . public character. Al other
claims to act under the ideas Of the surren-
der Of State sovereignty IN usurFaiion. Of
which. since the war. the Ge.eral Govern
ment has given abundant examples.
Rightly construed. the powers Of the
United States Courts in reference to in-
div:duals is concurrent. II strikes al
the very root Of State sovereignty, it brushes
il out, to admit that these Courts can in
terpose to turn aside the course Of domes.
tic law aud shield offe nders against
the laws Of the State by the plea Of origin
al jurisdiction. To admit doctrine so mon
strous is to give to officers Of the General
government absolute immunity for all crimes
Of violence or oppression. committed under
color Of their Office against citizens Of the
State because i IS to the interest OF the
General Government to protect lis officials
in order TO ensure their zeal, if not their
fidelity.
The State Courts ought never to enter
tain such doctrine. The State. who has
entrusted the administration Of its laws to
these Courts, looks to them to protect It's
citizens. No such abregation Of duties as
is contemplated by the claims Of the United
States Courts ought to be tolerated. It
never would have been submitted to except
under political exigencies submission to
which was imperative. The claim Of the
United States to interfere with the domes-
tic administration Of justice was set up DUR
ing that rapid march towards Capitalization
which began with the ascendsncy oftbe Re-
publican party. over riding in its course
the Constitution, State sovereignty, and eve
~ other safeguard 70 the stability Of The
government. That march Is happily arrest.
ed, and the country surely may gather agair
and reconstruct its shattered aud scattered
rights and powers without the suspicion Of
disloyalty or the promulgatiOn Of offensive
doctrines Of state rights.
The protection Of its citizens, the punish.
meut Of offences against them, are rights
aud duties the State cannot part with OF
eyade. These things can be better secur-
ed IN the State Courts than il left 10 fsde-
raj justice, fairness, Or cIemcney. We have
not forgotten tie Kuklux trials. where ju.
ries we're selected to convict. and Federal
Judge came prepared in advance 10 pro-
nounce sentence.