The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-25
J THE 81 LADD Al MURDER u !. CASE. s,l

! ~ AZ ~ luIe >luSetiuS Va Sho lSopiuos' IL
Washington, this case was made the.sub-
ject Of Cabinet consultation, and it is
reported that under the advice of Attor-
/ ney- General Deyens, it was determined to
sue. ont, under direction of the United
States Courts, q writ of Ha6eas Corpus,
the object of which is to take the Re
venue mulderers from the custody of the
State officers, and commit them to that
the United States Marshal, under the
direction Of the United States Circuit
Court Tha infamy ofthis proceeding is
Z evident, whenit is considered that the
object IS not the protection ofthe inno-
scent and. tue punishment of the guilty,
1.-THE protection and liberation of men
charged with murder without trial This
Infamous end was accomplished in the
case of Mattison, the Revenue murderer,
who had his case transferred from the
State to the Federal Court, and there
admitted tosbail, and although years
have passed, he has never been tried and
never will be, and even if he should be
tried in the United States Court and
found guilty, he could not be punished for
murder in that court. What was accom-
plished in the Mattison case, is now at
tempted in the case of the murderers of
I young Eadd, and it is to be seen if our
courts will remain firm and maintain the
majesty ofthe Constitution and laws Of
the United States and of South Carolina,
and thus afford protection to the lives of
THE people, or by yielding, place the
lives Of our people at the mercy Of irres.
ponsible Revenue officers. We hope our
courts will remain firm, and the people
viii sustainthem. We do not see how,
sifthe Sheriff having in custody the muir
derers should remain firm, the United
States authorities can obtain the custody
of them by virtue of the writ Of Ha6eas
Gbrps. The court cannot decree the
custody of the prisoners until they arc
actually produced in court. But suppose
The sheriff should decline to produce
them, and in reply to a rule to show
cause shy he should notbe declared in
contempt Of court, should show for cause,
that he held the prisoners under the
Federal and State Constitution and laws,
and by virtue of the decision of court
of competent and exclusive jurisdiction
of the cause that the United State Cir
cult Court had no right to reuis,o oras-
null that deaision, and that until that de-
cision was set aside by either the Supreme
Court ofthe State or of the United
States, he regarded it as his sworn duty
to retain the custody of the prisoners.
The decision of the Circuit Court as to
the saficiency of the cause shown would
be made by the court, subject to an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, but in the mean time the prison
.@ers would remain in the custody ofthe
sheriff. This is the course the case
should take if the writ of Hateas Corpus
should be issued but is it likely that the
Federal officers, knowing that this would
not set the murderers free, without trial,
permit it? Isit not more than proba-
: bic that they will pursue the same course
pursued in reference to the State Board
of Canyassers, direct the Marshal to take
the custody ofthe prisoners, and then
discharge them; or as:in the case of
.1rsttison, bail them on their own recog-
ssnisanca aud then never try them. We
psossst against this outrage upon law;
justice and civilization, against the in
terfsrencs With the State Judiciary, cloth
ed With full power to Try and determine
the ease, by 4 court with no power TO try
and pupish tbs guilt whose interference
is for mischief and only mischief. e,
SS6afd3 be tinctly nnderst0od that: onr':
8 3 8