The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1878-08-06

Congress has. in fact, exercised the pow
er of legislation to the extent claimed
by the prisoners, and such Legislation
was necessary and proper for carrying
into execution the taxing power OF th'
Government. the constitutionslity of the
Act cannot bc questioned.
III. by reference to the terms Of the
Act relied on (Reviscd Statutes. section
643) IL will be seen that to authorize 3
transfer of criminal prosecution under
hat Act. from tie State TO The Uuited
States Court: it is necessary That the
person concerned shall be an officer ap.
pointed under. or acting by. authority
of Revenue law Of the United States;
or, person acting under, or by. author
lty of any snch officer; 9. The act on
account of which he is called in ques.
tion must have bcoa done under color
of his Office. or Of some Revenue law. or
on account of some title or authority
claimed by such officer or other person
under somo revenue law. 3. The case
must be transferred from the State
Court to the United States Court for
trial, into the Circuit Court next to be
holden in the district where the same
is pending.
". Tn the case under consideration
it is not denied that the prisoners, at the
time complained of. wero an officer OF
the Revenue department and his assist
ants. TIE only questions. therefore.
are /. Was the act done "under color"
of their or any Revenue law ? or. 2.
Are they called in question ''on account
of any right. title or authoiity" claimed
by them under any Rrvenue lawY
V. This act done by the Revenue
officers. in this case, was the shooting
to death of citizen Of South Carolina.
for whom they had warrant of arrest
on charge Of violating the "Internal
Revenue laws"-an offence which vas
nothing more than q misdcmeaDor.
A warrant to arrest for misde-
meanor can under no circumstances au-
thorize the killing Of the person charged
and hence it is not such an act as can
be said to have been done under "colOr
Of Office"
An act is said to be done under color
Of Office when it is evilly done by the
conntenance..of an officer. oal
Nor can the killing of Ladd be said
to have been done under color of any
Revenue law or Of any right or authori-
ty claimed by such officer under any law
of the United States. for there is no law
of the United States which authorizes,
or appears to authorize, snch an act.
! vi. The prisoners claim that the
killing was done in necessary self-de.
i fence. Conceding this to be SC. the de-
fence is Common Law defence 1S
does not exist by virtue OF the process
claimed 10 be in the hands Of the officers,
or the authority of the Statute Inv
wherewith they were clothed. The kill
! ing was an act done, not in execution OF
the warrant, but in the defence of the
person of the individual. 1t was justi.
fable. If at al, not because Of the pres
enc9 Of ths warrant. but by reason OF
the conduct Of the deceased.
VII. But again, if this case is trans
ferred to The Circuit Court of the Uni>
ted States, it must be for the purpose OF
being "tried' at the next term Of Court.
The Constitution of the United States
coufers judicial power "only in the cases
provided for and enumerated in Article
! III, Section 2. IF the United States
Courts have jurisdiction OF the matter
involved in this controversy, it can only
be undcr the clause which declares that
the judicial pow r shall extend to "all
cases in law and equity arising under
the Constitution and laws of the United
States"
It has been uniformly held that the
term "all cases" includes offences
against the laws and Constitution of the
United States, and that the Federal
Courts had jurisdiction in all cases OF
that character where Congress has er.
pressly conferred the Jurisdiction and
prouided The punishment.
Congress has not, however, conferred
on any Court of the United States ju-
risdiction Of the crime Of homicide
committed within the limits of State,
except where, by reason Of the cession
of territory and jurisdiction, the United
States had exclusive jurisdiction.
VIII. Nor could Congress confer
jurisdiction upon the Federh Courts
except in cases arising under the Con.
stitution and laws of United States. and
depending on the exposition of the
Federal Constitution or laws in respect
to something which the law prohibits
or enjoins.
Now this is caso Of homicide arising
within the limits of the State and to b'
determined wholly upon the principle
of the Common law, and cannot depend
upon the exposition Of any law of the
United States, Constitution or Statute
1t is not, therefore, case included ii
the judicial powers conferred by th'
Constitution. and hence the United
States Courts could not entertain juris
diction.
IX. Nor has Congress attempted ii
the Act in question to legislate beyon'
, its Constitutional powers. After pro
, yiding how the cases described shall b.
! transferred to tho Circuit Court, th'