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

. entered on the docket OF the Circui
Court, and shall proceed as a caus
originally commenced in court" Moth
ing can be more manifest than tina, n,
cause was contemplated to be removed
under the act, except such as nigh
have been originally commenced in tina
court. Says Judge Conkling, in BIZ
learned treatise, p. 1869: "Iudeed it il
perfectly obvious that no suit can b.
removed to the national courts, which
might not, by the constitution of the
United States, haYo been originally
commenced in one of those courts 4
X X it may, therefore, be safely as
sumed that ali the decisions affecting
the original Jurisdiction of the circuit
courts, in the classes of cases which may
be removed, are equally applicable te
them as subjects Of removal.
If it be conceded that Congress had
the right to confer jurisdiction upor
the circuit courts "to try" a case ot
murder committed by an officer of the
Revenue. while executing process, OF
discharging bis duty as such, there is
no act of Congress that does confer
such jurisdiction. In The case Of the
United States vs.. Hudson & Goodwin
| q Oranch, 32) majority Of the Su'
preme Court decided that the circuit
courts could not exercise common law
jurisdiction. Ch. Kent, summarizing
that decision, says: "Of all che courts
which the United States, under their
general powers, might constitute, the
Supreme Court was the only one that
possessed jurisdiction derived immedi-
ately from the constitution. All other
courts created by the general Govern
ment possessed no jurisdiction but what
was given them by the power that erea-
ted them, and could be vested with none
bat what the power ceded to the gen.
eral Government would authorize them
to confer. = When court was
created, and its operations confined to
certain specific objects, it could not as
sumo more extended Jurisdiction. Ger
tain implied powers must necessarily
result to the courts of justice from the
nature Of their institution, but juris-
diction of crimes against the State was
not one Of them. To fine for contempt,
to imprison for coutumacy, to enforce
the observance Of order. are powers
necessary to the exercise of all other
powers, and incident to the courts, with.
out the authority ola statute. But to
exercise criminal jurisdiction in common
law cases was not within their implied
powers, and it was necessary for Con-
gress TO make the act crime, to afix
court W6iesn s66dlu fRa Ssas f. a4sIase The
Comm. 334.) He adds Ib. 1897
"The principle assumed by the courts,
in the cases of Worrall vs.. Hudson q
Goodwin, is considered to be safe and
sound principle" This is undoubtedly
the law, and consequently no case has
been shown where Congress failed,
when it attempted to confer jurisdic'
tion of criminal offence, TO make the
act crime, to afix punishment to tt,
and to declare the court which shall
have Jurisdiction" !
The statute law of the United States
now of force, is to be found in the Re-
vised Statutes, and the acts of Con-
gress, passed since the first day Of De-
cember. 1873. (kevised Statute, Sec
tions 1896, 56O1) The jurisdiction o.
the Circuit Court in criminal matters
is declared in Sec. 629 clause 20, which
is in these words: Exclusive cogni
zance of all crimes and offences cogni'
Fable under the authority of the Uni
ted States, except where it is or may
be otherwise provided by law. and con
current jurisdiction with the Dlstric
Courts, of crimes and offences cogniza
BILE therein" 1t is broad enough t
cover all offences cognizable under thu
constitution and laws Of the United
States, except as therein provided, ant
it is conceded that the case Of murde
within the limits of u State is not on
of the exceptions. Title 70 of the Re
vised Statutes embraces in its provis
ions the crimes and offences "cogniza
BILE under the authority of the Unite'
States" so far as Congress has exer
cised the power to declare and punisl
such offences, except in the case of Stat
utes passed since December l, 1873
and nowhere do we 6nd that Congres
, has provided for the crime of murde
committed by one of its officers, in ex
ecuting process within the limits ant
under the Jurisdiction of the State. Th
, absence ofsuch legislation, even in
: clear case of constitutional power t.
, exercise it, would be fatal to the juris
! diction claimed by the Circuit Court t.
try the case. and it cannot be supposed
f that the act was intended to provide TO
7 the transfer "for trial" of q cause whicl
, tho court could not try for the want 0
Jurisdiction.
Against this reasoning numerou
cases are cited which are supposed t
be in conflict Herewith. An examina
ton of these eases has failed to shak
nv convictions of the soundncss Of th
opinions expressed.
The case of Cohens vs.. Virgini'
, which seemed to be one Of those chief
S relied on by the counsel for the prison
0 ers, was one unquestionably arising ur
: der an act of Congress passed in pursl