Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1878-06-14
From the Boston Journal.
Where are the jackson Demo-
Gratis?


offence for Federal officers to attempt to
collect certain revenues in that StIte AT
that time Andrew Jackson, who to-day
stands as the great exponent OF democra-
cy. was President. President Jackson
was properly indignant at the passage of
this. qualification acl' and requested Con
gress TO pass law by which it was pro-
vided that any civil suit or criminal pros
ecution brought in State court against
a Federal officer could be transferred from
the State 10 the Federal courts Ever
since that time that law. recommended
by democratic President and passed by
a democratic Congress, has remained I'M
disturbed until the other day, when the
present democratic House, by strict par
ty vote. practically, so far as one branch
can do 1t, repealed the act by adopting
the following amendment, offered by Mr..
appropriation bills:
"Provided, That so much of section CAB Of the
Revised Statutes of the United States as applies
to the removal of civil suits from the States to
the United States Courts or criminal prosecutions
against any officer appointed under acting by
authority of any revenue law Of the United States
be, and the same is hereby, repealed"
Forty Northern democrats voted for this
amendment, among whom were Messrs.
Dean and Morse of Mass. Jones of New
Hampshire and Landers OF Connecticut
Should this bill become a law, as it will
not, every Federal officer would be as Ut
terly without protection in certain States
as would an official representing foreign
bill practically declare that the United
States is "A foreign power and without au-
thority to collect its revenue in any Soy
ereign State. No State rights doctrine was
ever more ultra than is the theory upon
which the action of the House is based
1t is nothing less than declaration of the
democratic House against the democracy
of Jackson's time, which applauded him
when he made the hostility of State to
treason which should be punished.
Messrs. Dean, Morse. Jones and Landers
may not be aware of the fact, but in vot-
ing to repeal President Jackson's law pro-
tecting Federal officers, they approved of
the notification act of South Carolina
which came near plugging the country
into civil war in 1888.
Why is this old law to be repealed?
Why does Mr.. Vance of North Carolina
bring forward this unusual amendment, to
repeal revised statut. that has stood for
nearly fifty yearsP Simply to prevent the
enforcement of the revenue laws in North
Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Tennessee,
Kentucky, and wherever public sentiment
is hostile to such laws. North Carolina is
full of Illicit distilleries. The Federal
government experiences the utmost diff
Guilty in enforcing the law. Recently
suits were brought against several Federal
officers in the courts of the State for dam
ages and several were indictt d for alleged
offences against the peace of that State
while enforcing the laws One court held
that the cases could not be taken to the
Federal courts, but that the courts of North
Carolina coull send these Federal officers
to prison in defiance OF the General Gov
ernmeit. The full court overruled the de.
cisioD. Now, what. Mr.. Vance desires is
to remove all protection from Federal off
GERS and leave them TO be prosecuted, fined
and sent to prison by hostile State conrts
The repeal of the Jackson act would rem
der 1t practically impossible to collect the
whisky tax in any OF the border States.
and is, therefore, no more nor less than n
notification act, rendering void the laws
imposing taxes on whisky and tobacco in
the States referred TO. Should it become
law. any United States Marshal or Col
lector of Internal Revenue who might ar
rest violator Of the revenue laws for sell
ing whisky or tobacco without license
would be liable to prosecution in the State
courts, and bound over, indicted and pun
ished for performing his duty to the Gen
eral government. He would have no an
peal to the Federal courts, and thus the
Federal government would be comp He'd
to see its servants punished without any
power to protect them.
Has the democracy of the country so
changed that its representatives in Con-
gress can only carry out the party princi-
pies by repeating the laws which were
passed on the recommendation of the
father CT the democratic p lrty a? Fortv
five years ago the democratic leaders in
Congress declared that - authority of
the Federal Executive must be made to be
respected, and the laws must be executed
What change has come over the democra-
cy Of to-day, that part of it now in Con.
gress, that it practically saws that the Fed
eral authority shall be held in derision bv
law-breakers, aud sanctions legislation
which will render all attempts to enforce
the laws iruitless? What have the forty
Affharn a..