The daily gazette., 1878-07-27
REVENUE TROUBLES
The Shooting Amos Ladd
in South Carolina.
lndictm mt Of 'evenus Office S
CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND
STATE LAWS.
HOW THE CASE TANDs
CoLUMBIA. S. c., .Inlv 2l

COLUMBIA, 5. c., July %.
The facts in relation to the impison-
ment aud pending trial Of the four reye-
nue. officers concerned in the recent kill
ing of Amos Ladd, an alleged dstiller of
Pickens county, in this State, will not be
found to warrant the excitement and
heated discussion now in progress through
out the country in relation thereto. The
only point of interest involved is purely
a legal one, and must be settled in the
courts where alone it can be properly con-
sidered, and where II will soon find a salts
factory conclusion. The facts then briefly
stated are as follows:
On the 9th of June party of four
revenue officers, consisting of Deputy
Marshals Moose, Scruggs, Kane and Dur
ham, who were in Pickens county, and in
search OF Redmond, the well known out
law, quietly surrounded house where he
was enormously supposed to be in hiding
and having seen an armed man enter
whom they supposed ODE Redmond, they
rushed upon the house from several direc-
tions for the purpose of capturing him
The officers state in their aflidavits that
when Kane who was ahead, reached one
door, he was confronted by man in the
house, who Immediately presented and
snapped his gun at him. Kane fired at
the same instant, and the man rushing
or 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 fired twice upon
the man without knowing who had fired
the first shot. The man fell dead on the
spot without having spoken word and
upon inquiry of the women present the
officers discovered that they had killed
their brother, Amos Ladd. Fearing
violence at the hands Of the people of
the neighborhood the officers at once fled
the county, and went 10 the next county
Of Greenville, where they voluntarily
surrendered themselves to the Sheriff
for protection and were imprisoned In
due form.
INDICTED FOR MURDER.
The regular term of court for Pickens
county met few weeks later, and the
officers without being brought from
Greenyille Jail, where formally indicted
for murder The State was represented
by Solicitor Cothran and the prisoners by
Assistant United States Attorneys w. 4.
Earle and L. w. NJ. Mackey. On mo-
ton of the latter gentleman change of
venue to Anderson county was granted,
and a day-the 9th Of July-set for the
hearing, at Greenville, of argument on
the point Of transferring the case to the
United States Court. In the interval
petition for removal was filed in the office
of the Clerk of the United States Court
at Charleston, who thereupon issued his
writ of habeas corpus cum causa to the
United States Marshal, and on the morn
ing of the 9th copy of the writ was
served by deputy marshal Oh the Sheriff
of Greenville county and formal de-
mand made for the custody of the priso-
ners.
ARGUMENT BEFORE JUDGE KERsHAw.
. The demand was refused and the ques-
ton came up the same day before Judge
karshaw for argument in the nature of "A
plea to the jurisdiction. The prisoners
were represented AZ before and the State
by the Solicitor and the Attorney Gener-
al The arguments occupied the entire
day, and cannot be fully indicated here.
Biirtiy stated they were as follows
Counsel for the prisoners argued the pro-
visions of the famous 643d section of the
ReviSed Statutes, and upon mans pre-
cedents in other States. Counsel for the
State urged that the statute did not apply
10 this case anu that IL was unconStltu-
, tional if it did.
THE MOTION REFUSED.
Judge Kershaw reserved his decision
until July IL, when he announced that
he "as comp He'd to refuse the motion
for removal upon the grounds, mainly.
FirSt-That the killing was not done
under color of office, as the offence with
. which Ladd stood charged was viola
ton OF the Internal Revenue laws. This
offence WAS only II misdemeanor, and
warrant of Arrest for misdern-anor could
under no circumstances authorize the
killing of the party charged.
S9c0mI-The circumstances of the Kill
= ling, as set forth by the prisoners them
S selves, do not make such case OF resist
, ance as justitieh the killing.
, | 1hird-If such killing was done innec-
essary selt-defence, as alleged, that is Il
, common law defence, and the killing was
not done under of the office or OF the stat
ut law involved.
| FourH-The judicial power of the Uni
ted States is defined and Ii United by the
constitution, article 3, sec ion ., andit Is
, clear that the United States courts have
, no jurisdiction of the matters involved III
this controversy, by rea-un OF The charac-
ter of the part es as citizea- of he Stat,
AMI b, cause Congress has nowhere COLI
ferred such jurisdiction OF the crime oil
| homicide except where by reason OF the
I cession of territory and jurisdiction the
: United States had exclusive authority
FJM-Th- Circuit Court coull not ull-
/ der the constitution entertanJ Jurisdlcnoh
! of the case, If transferred, unless 1t was
one arising un Ter the constitution or laws
D OF the United Stet 5, ami this Is not one
. SO arislug.
Judge ker-haw closes his opinion with
the ininder that his decision mar he re-
! v ''-""d b. the State and United States