The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-25
Conflict OF Jurisdiction-Judge Ker.
shaw's Decision in the Revenue
Cases,

The concluding passages OF the opinion
of Judge Kershaw, upon the motion TO
transfer to the United States Court the
proceedings against the Revenue officers
who killed Amos Ladd,. were published
yesterday. Judge Kershaw refused the
motion. The reasons which governed him
in coming to this conclusion are given
both clearly and freely in his opinion, and
we shall endeavor to state them as briefly
as is compatible with an understanding
of the gravity of the questions discussed,
and the momentous importance of the
matter in dispute:
The facts upon which the application
for removal were based, as derived from
the recitals of the writ, are that the pris-
oners, United States Marshal and Deputy
Collectors of Internal Revenue, who were
in the discharge of their duty in this Dis
trict of South Carolina, are now held in
the common Jail of Greenville County,
together with G. w. Moose, to answer
before the Court OF. General Sessions for
Anderson County, charged with feloni-
ously killing Amos Ladd, of the County
of Pickens, whereas it is alleged that
the killing of the said Amos Ladd by the
said Hugh P. Kane, William Durham,
Robert P. Scruggs and G. w. Moose, was
done by them while in the discharge of
their duty, acting as posse aiding and
assisting the said @. w. Moose, Deputy
United States Marshal and Deputy Col
lector of Internal Revenue, under orders
and by authority of him, the said G. w.
Moose, Deputy Marshal and Deputy Col
lector as aforesaid, who had warrant
issued by United States Commissioner
of the District aforesaid, for the arrest Of
party charged with violations of the
Internal Revenue laws and in search of
Illicit whiskey; and that all the acts done
by them were in self-defence, the said
Amos Ladd having assaulted and resisted
the said Deputy Marshal and Deputy
Collector and his posse, while in the dis
charge of their duty as such Deputy
United States Marshal and Deputy Col
lector of Internal Revenue" &c. Filed
with the record in the State Court are
afidavits of the prisoners stating the acts
done by them and the attendant circum-
stances, specifically and in detail, pre-
pared and used in the State Court upon
their application for bail there. The
question, for Judge Kershaw to determine
was whether the prisoners had entitled
themselves to an order staying the pro-
ceedings in the State Court, and surren-
dering the prisoners to the custody of the
United States Marshal. This was claimed
under section SAB of the Revised Statutes
of the United States, and 'eif the act cited
is applicable to this case, and if Congress
had the power to legislate to that effect,
the motion must prevail. Otherwise, it
must be denied" The authority of Con-
gress "to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into
execution" the taxing powers of the gov
ernment cannot be questioned. Has
Congress exercised the power of legisla-
ton to the extent claimed by the prison.
ers, and is such legislation necessary
and proper2" The cases subject to be
transferred to the United States Court
under the act referred to are indicted
thus: "Where any civil suit or criminal
prosecution is commenced in any Court
of State against an officer appointed
under, or acting by authority of, any
Revenue law of the United States,
or against any person acting under, or
by authority of, any such officer, on ac-
count of any act done under color of his
Office or of any such law, or on account
of any right, title or authority claimed
by such officer or other person under any
such law, the said suit or prosecution
may, at any time before the trial or final
hearing thereof, be removed for trial
into the Circuit Court next to be holden
in the district where the same is pend
ing" &c. The act done by the prisoner
was nothing less than the shooting to
death of citizen of the State, q youth
standing, when first fired into, in the
door of his mothers house, with whom
he resided, and in the presence of the
family, and finally and fatally shot down
in the yard of the homestead by another
of the prisoners, as he fled, wounded,
from the first"
Judge Kershaw holds that, if the Office
exercised by the prisoners or any warrant
such as is set up by them could authorize
the act done, then the act might be said
to have been done under color of the
Office or authority. (Turpin VS.. Brannon,
3 M. C. 26; I Jacobs Law Dictionary,
501.) The warrant under which they
claim to have acted is said to have been
for the arrest of person charged with
violation of the Internal Revenue laws.
This offence is nothing more than mis-
idemeanors A warrant to arrest TOR
smisdemeanot can, under no ,circumstan:
ices, authorize the killing of the party