The Camden journal. [volume] (Camden, S.C.) 1866-1891, 1878-09-19

II
panied with the cash to insure insertion.
are denied here. Nor does this decis-
lou conflict with any decision Of the
Supreme Court Of the United States
cited by the learned counsel.
The cases cited which do conflict
are those of the Circuit Court in Uni
ted States er rel. Roberts. vs. Jailor Of
Faystte County, e Abb, 265, } and the
decision of the Supreme Conrt of North
Carolina in the case Of Jesse +. Hor-
kins CT N. c., 531.) Neither of these
decisions are Of authority here, and
have only such force as their reasoning
may eutitle them TO-.
In the former case the learned Judge
lays down principles of law to which
a ready assent may be granted, but the
vice Of the decision is that it assumes
that the plea Of self>defence set up by
an officer who kills one whom he seeks
to arrest under process, is the same
thing as pleading justification under the
process, expressly disclaiming, at the
same time, any right to assume juris-
diction OF "a plea of self-defence.
Furthermore. that decision arose unA
der the act of March 2. 1888, a st. at
L., 634, Sec. - which declares that
the Judges of the United States shall
have power to grant writs Of ha5sas
corpus in all cases of q prisoner in jail
or confinement, when committed or
confined "on or by any authority or
law, for any act done or omitted to be
done, in pursuance of law Of the Uni
ted States, or any order, process or de-
cree of any Judge or Court thereof"
&c. Under that act the Judge simply
discharged the prisoner. He did not
consider, nor was there any reason to
construs the act relied on in this case,
involving those questions which arise
under the provisions Of the act, that
the cases be removed "for trial." and
be docketed and stand as if "originally
commenced therein" Nor does the
learned Judge determine or discuss the
constitutionality of the act under which
be tried and determined q case Of mur-
der committed within the Jurisdiction
Of a State, and against her sovereignty,
without the intervention Of jury.
The Hoskins case is first considered
by the learned Judge delivering the
opiuion Of the Court, as a question of
the "eouity Of nations" How such
principle can be invoked to determine
question concerning the relations be-
tween the States and the General Gov
ernment, does not readily appear, and
such an introduction does not prepare
the mind for favorable consideration
of what follows. The Court then pro-
cceds to decide the coustitutionality Of
the act involved 10 this case by refer
snsa to most ofthe cases cited'here, none
statute. IF the authorities cited TO sus-
tain the case. and the reasoning upon
them pursued here BY counsel, do not
meet the case, the decision in Hoskins'
case fails to do 30.
The counsel representing the prison.
ers have, since the hearing, furnished
me with other decisions of the Circuit
Court of the United States. among
them that Of Jenkins in I'd Wallace, jr.
521, United States vs.. Gleason, lst
Woolworth, c c, 1913, and United States
VS.. O'Grady case arising in Georgia,
reported in the Central Law Journal, P.
465.
The first case arose under the habeas
corpus act of 1888, and does not decide
any of the questions discussed here.
The case of Gleason arose under the
act of February "a, 1854, (13 U. s.
Stat. at large g. for the enforcement
of the enrolling acts, and I do not find
there anything to assist me in deciding
this case, except that it calls to nay at
tention the fact that the act of 1864 de.
clared that if any person should assault
and kill an officer engaged in arresting
any spy or deserter, the offender shall
be guilty of murder, and upon convic-
ton thereof, "shall be punished with
DEATH" and illustrates the proposition
before made, that Congress, when it
confsrs jurisdiction of criminal offence,
defines the offence fixes the punishment,
and declares the court to try it.
The case of O. Grady is upon tho act
discussed here, aud the points decided
as gathered from the syllabus are: J.:
That the case is not removable until
the finding of an indictment.
2. That the right Of challenge Of the
Jurors is governed in such case by the
laws of the United States.
3. That the guilt or innocence Of the
prisoner must be determined by the laws
of the State.
There is no question made Of the ju.
risdiction or of any other points than
those decicided rs above, and on none
of these am I inclined to differ from
that court.
I have endeavorsd in this discussion
to adhere strictly to the points involved,
but it is proper that I should refer to a
circumstance that ought to induce very
careful review Of these acts removing
for trial criminal cases commenced in
the State court. They were passed in
times of great politicrl excitement and
during the most serious disturbances OF
the relations between the States and the
nouernment Those of 1888 were