National Republican., 1878-11-19
STATES RIGHTS VS.. NATIONAL sUPREM-
ACN.

We have before us the able argument of
Assistant United States Attorney L. W.
NJ MACKEY, of South Carolina, delivered at
Greenyillc on July 3, 1878, before the Hon.
J. b. KERsHAw, one of the circuit judges OF
that State on the removal of the cases of
The State vs.. KANE ct al. from State courts
to Federal courts.
The able manner in which Mr.. MACKEY
attacks and lays bare the States Rights her.
csy, and the iorcible plea which he pre-
sentcd for the cause OF National over State
supremacy, is well worthy the pcrusal of
every lover of constitutional liberty in the
land. Mr.. MACHEY is one Of small num-
Der of leading South Carolina Republicans
who has had the courage at all times to lay
bare the corruptions and rnscaIities OF the
South Carolina Democracy, and the forcble
manner in which he presents his arguments
in the cases before us shows that he has lost
none of his ancient vigor. After citing
scores Of authorities to show the supremacy
of the Federal over the State courts in such
cases, Mr.. MACKEY concludes rs follows:
In couscnting to argue before your Honor
tho question of the right Of removal, 1t must
be distinctly understood that we do so simply
as matter of courtesy, because the prisoners
are now held by the sheriff Of GreCnyille
County by virtue OF an Indictment for murder
found at the late term OF the Count Of General
Sessions of the county of PiCkGns, over which
your Honor presided aud the sheriff having
refused to surrender the custody Of the pris,
ouers as commanded by tho writ of hdJed,
corpus, we deem it proper before rcsorting IA
| other measures to compel him to obey, 10 en-
Ioavor to convince your Honor that these
prisoners are entitled to have their case ro
moved t0 tho Circuit Court Of the United
States
In asking your Honor to stay all further pro
ccedings IN the State Court and to direct th(
sheriff TO surrender the prisoners into the Gus
tOdy of the marshal our object Is to prevent
| ( possible, any conflict Of jurisdiction between
| the courts of the State and the courts Of thu
| United States and not because we deem ANY
action OF the State Court necessary to give
effect to the proceedings for removal.
Tho right OF removal as conferred by section
| 6i3 of the Revised Statutes does not rs alrGady
| intinuted, depend upon any action OF the Stat
Court, but 1t Is right which Is conferred upon
the party directly and depends In no name
upon the yOlitiDn or action or nOn.actiUu 0
the State Court.
1t Is true that the effect Of the law is to dc
priye the State occasionally Of tho right to tr!
a supposed offender against hsr criminal laws
But while 1t Is important thata State shout
haYu the right TO try all ohom5es against he
criminal laws, II is equally rs important, If no
mure So that the UuiteA States should hav
the power to protect Its officers, aud particu
lurly It's revenue officers, in tho discharge q
their duty. By removing the case from th
State to the United States Circuit Court no III
justice Is done the State, because her prosccut
Ing ohirors can follow the case into the Fedora
court and there prosecute with the same vigl
that they would In tho State court, Tho rC
movul OF the case docs not necessarily mean tn
acquitIal Of the defendants, because, unlea
they can prove that the killing w.s JustIdlbl'
! q conviction must follow.