The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1878-07-26
The Shooting Of Amos Ladd
in South Carolina.
INDICTMENT OF REVENUE OFFICERS.
Conflict of Federal and
State Laws.
HOW THE CASE STANDS.



Tho facts in relation to the Imprisonment and |
pending trial OF the four officers concerned
IN the recent killing OF Amos Ladd an alleged dis |
ler Of Piekens county, in this State, will not DO
ound to warrant tho excitement and heated discus
sion now in progress throughout the country in rela
purely legal one, and must be settled in the courts,
where alone it can be properly considered and whore
Il will soon find satisfactory conclusion The facts
then briefly stated are as follows:--
On the 9th Of June party OF four officers
consisting Of Deputy Marshals Moose, scruggs, Kane
ana Durham. who wero in Pickers county, and In
search Of Redmond the well known outlaw, quietly
surrounded a house whero he erroaeously sup
posed to be in hiding, and having seen armed man
enter whom they supposed 10 be Redmond, they
rushed upon the house IRON several directions for the
purpose OF capturing him. The officers state in their
afi davts that when Kane, who ahead reached
door, he was confronted by man in the house, who
Immediately presented and snapped hs at
him. Kane fred at the same instant and the man
rushing falling out Of the opposite doorway, was
met by Officer Durham, who had come up on that side
OF the house. and who also Immediately freq twice
first shot. The man fell dead the spot without
having spoken word, and upon inquiry OF tho wo-
men present the officers discovered that they had
killed their brother, Amos Ladd. Fearing violence
tho hands OF the people Of the neighborhood
the officers at once fed the county, ana
went to tho next county OF Grcenv,ile where they
voluntarily surrendered themselves TO the sheriff Tor
protection and wore imprisoned In due form.
INDICTED FOR MURDER.
The regular term OF court Tor Pickens county met a
few weeks later, and the officers, without being
brought from Groenvic jail, were formally indicted
for murder. The State represented by Solicitor
Cohran the prisoners by Assistant United States
Attorneys W. E. Earle aud 4. w. NJ. Mackey. On
mosion Of tho latter gentleman change OF venue TO
Anderson county was granted, and a day-thc OH
Of Juy-sct for the hearing, Grcenvle,
OF argument the point OF transferring ,ho
the United States Court In the interval petition
for removal nied IN the Office OF the CLERK OF the
United States Court at Charleston, who thereupon
issued his writ OF habeas corpus cum causa to tho
United States Marshal and on tho morning OF tho
eta copy Of the writ was served by deputy mar
shall on the Shsril OF Greenvle county aud formal
demand made for tho custody OF the prisoners.
ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE KERsHAw.
The demand was refused and the question came up
tho same day before Judge Kershaw Tor argument In
Tho nature OF plea to the Jurisdiction fhc prisoners
were before and the State by the soc
tor aud the Attorney General. The arguments occu-
pied tho entire DAY, and cannot DO fully indicated
here. Briefly stated they were as follows: Counsel
for The prisoners argued the provisions OF the famous
C3d section OF Revised Statutes, and upon many
preceden.s IN other States Counsel for tho State
urged that the statute did not apply to this aud
that It was unconstitutional II il did.
THE MOTION REFUSED
Judge Kcrshaw reserved his decision until July 10.
when he announced that he was compelled to refuse
tho motion for removal upon tho grounds, mainly.
Firs-That the killing was not done under color OF
Office as tho offence with which lad stood charged
was violation OF the Internal Revenue laws. This
offence was only misdemeanor, and a warrant OF
arrest for misdemcanor could under no circum.
stances authorize tho killing oil the party charged
Second-The circumstances OF tho killing as set
for tn by the prisoners themselves do not mako such
a case OF resistance as justified tho killing.
Third-Ii such killing was done ia necessary seii-
defence, as alleged. that Is common law defence.
and the killing was not done under color Of the Office
or OF the statute law involved.
FourtA-The judicial power OF tho United States Ia
defined and limited by tho constitution, article g.
ton 2 and II Is clear that tho United States
have no jurisdiction OF The matters involved In this
controversy by OF the character Of the parties
Us citzens OF tho State and because Congress has
where conferred such Jurisdiction OF tho crime oil
homicide except whore by reason OF the oesaion Of
territory and Jurisdiction tho United States had ex
elusive authority.
EYfh--Thc Circuit Court could not under tho con-
situation entertain Jurisdiction OF the casc II trans
fcrfsd unless e was arising under the constitu
ton or laws OF the United States and this IS not one
SO arising.
m,ndcr that his decision may DO reviewed by tho
State and Uuiiod States supreme Court, and says:
The determination OF the latter would be nal
and conclusive and with entrc adeIty be sustained
by the courts here.
|. TIE ACTION AT WASHINGTON.
What has bocu done and said ut Washington since
the rendering Of his decision Is too and well
known TO need repeating here. II should be said,
however that tho case the part OF the State has
been pressed only because this Is considered test
trial OF a matter long held In dispute aud be-
lore met the settlement of which Is necessary TO the
cear establishment OF the rotations of the State and
federal courts. There Is no undue excitement here
over tho natter. aud tho prisoners, who realty figure
but very little In ITS consideration. are as safe from
violence az they would DO In Washington Itself.
WHAT GOVERNOR HAMPTON
lie response to my request Tor his views upon the
subject Governor Hampton said this evening that
no Is anxious thai the should DO allowed take
It's regular course. In order that tho questions IN
VOWED may be settled Tor the future IL VIII certainly
20 up through the state Supreme Court on appeal,
and tho United States Supreme Court will ultimately
decide IL In any event. II tho government should
SORT It's Jurisdiction at once, and take possession
tho prisoners by percmptory order, his
course would occasion great AMI needless excite
..yat, aud would render tho further enforcement
OF the revenue laws almost impossible ss the DIS
tsrs would be led to think that the State authorities
are unable TO protect Thorn aud tho probability Is that
tho gravest consequences would follow, all hi,
Efforts 10 have the State ana United states laws en-
forced would DO rendered nugstory. 81 am very
ANXIOUS" he said, 'nat the government shalt allow
the case proceed as II stands, as Is possible
that the State supreme Court may decid,
In favor OF tho United states government, ant
In this event a perfect ncquicscence would b
heartily accorded Tho opinion throughout the State
~ stfI..