Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1878-08-01
The Aurkrille @mqniter.
YORKVILLE. s. c.:
THURSDAY MORNING, AUG. l, 1875
THE LADD MURDER CASE.

THE LADD MURDER CASE.
The decision of Judge Kershaw, refusing
the motion to transfer to the United States
Court the case of the revenue officers indicted
for the murder of young Ladd, seems to have
created as much excitement in some portions
of the North as if the Judge had officially
promulgated an ordinance of secession for
immediate adoption by the people of South
Carolina. There is no doctrine either new
or startling in the decision of Judge Ker-
shaw. The same position, in precisely SINH
lar cases, has been taken by Circuit Judges
in North Carolina, and there is now in the
United States Supreme Court, on writ of
error from the State Supreme Court of North
Carolina, the case of an internal revenue of.
6cer indicted for murder, which case Judge
Kerr of the circuit bench refused to transfer
to the United States Court. In this case,
as in the Ladd case, the accused averred
that the alleged offence was committed in
the discharge of his duties as a United
States officer, and therefore the case was
cognizable only in the United States Courts.
Judge Kerr, however, maintained that the
crime was murder, committed in North Car
olina, in violation of the laws of North Car.
olina, and under the laws of that State ne
should be tried. From this decision an ap-
peal was taken, and as we have said above,
the question is yet undecided.
No greater absurdity could be conceived
than to suppose that Judge Kershaw desires
q conflict with United States authorities, or
that he would 60 outside of his plain duty as
a judicial officer to precipitate trouble be-
tween the State and United States Govern
ments. He rendered his decision from purely
conscientious motives, governed by the law
as he interprets it, and in which Interpretation
it is safe to say he would be sustained by eve
~ member of the South Carolina bench-or
for that matter the judiciary of every State
in the Union. The determination of the Rev
enue Department to protect its officers, no
matter what excess or crime they may com
NIT while presumed to be in the discharge OF
their duty, is one thing; and plain, SIM
pie construction of the law as it applies to
case of murder committed in violation of the
laws of sovereign State, is quite another.
The difference between the propositions is
simply that in such cases the United States
Court is organized to acquit; while in the
State Court the accused would be on the same
footing of any other individual put upon his
trial for murder.
We published the salient points of Judge
Kershaw's decision soon after it was render.
ed. In this decision, the Judge used the fol.
lowing language: ut is most important that
this conflict of jurisdiction should be fairly
settled. If this decision should be reviewed
by the Supreme Court of the State, which is
greatly to be desired, its judgment sustaining
the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts would
be faithfully supported in this State. Should
it determine against the jurisdiction, the
whole question may be taken to the Supreme
Court of the United States for final arbitra'
ment, and its determination would be final
and conclusive, and with entire fidelity be
sustained by the Courts here" Surely there
is nothing in these words Of defiant or re-
bellious nature-nothing to justify the New
York Tribune in the charge it makes that
Judge Kershaw is defiant" or that South
Caroline is "insolent, overbearing and insub-
ordinate"
The Tribune, the Times and other papers
of the same ilk, may quiet their fears as to
the augury of rebellion in South Carolina,
simply because one of her Judges construes
the law as it is written. The same Judge
points to e solution of the question, should,
as he evidently apprehended, a conflict of ju.
rsdiction arise. And in its final arbitra-
ment, which must be as he suggests, the courts
and the people of South Carolina will sub.
NIT with "entire fidelity" This ought to be
eminenty satisfactory to the most exacting
selfconstituted censor of South Carolina to
be found among all the pizerinctums of the
North who discover mares nest in nearly
every public event that transpires in the
State
The New York Post takes a sensible view
of the subject as follows:
The spirit in which some of the telegraphic
press correspondents and some Of the North
ern newspapers treat the threatened conflict
of jurisdiction between the Federal Courts
and the South Carolina State Courts, seems
to US to be unfair, and, in its way, mischiev-
Gus. So far as the facts appear they are
these: Certain persons who happen to be
officers in the revenue service are held by
South Carolina State Courts to answer for al.
legged offences against State laws. 1t having
been intimated that writ of habeas corpus
would be sought in the United States Circuit
Court for their release South Carolina
Judge has said that ifthe United States Court
shall transcend it's authority, in issuing writ
of the kind, it will become his duty to disre-
gard the writ as an unlawful interference.
This utterance has been called South Caro-
linas threats characterization which is
wrong at both ends, the declaration is not a
threat, and it is not South Carolna's. 1t is
merely the declaration of judge that he will
act, in certain hypothetical case, in accord
ance with his understanding of the law, re-
sisting, by legal means, what be believes
would be violation of the rights and a tres.
pass upon the jurisdiction of his court. In
this resolution he is clearly right, whether bis
Interpretation of the law is sound or un-
sound. That point, once raised in this way,
would be decided by higher tribunal, and
no harm whatever would be done. Such
conflicts of jurisdiction between State and
Federal Courts have arisen before, and will
arise again, not in South Carolina alone, but
in all parts of the country. They are like all