The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-25
of office. Nor is there any law cf the
United States for the collection Of the


authorize, any such act, and therefore
upon like reasoning it ia manifest that it
cannot be claimed to have been done
under color of ANY such law or 'on ac-
count of any right, title or authority
claimed by such officer or other person
under any such law There being no
such law as authorized the act, no such
authority could be claimed under the
law. It follows that the law set uE' does
not embrace. this case under this provis-
ion." It was argued, however, that the
officers, having q warrant authorizing an
arrest and being resisted by Ladd in the
execution of that process, had right to
slay him. This is a misapprehension of
the law. The circumstances, as set forth
by the prisoners, do not make such case
of resistance as would Justify the killing.
After having lain for some time in am
bush the prisoners determined to make
"charge" upon Ladd's house, and cid so
charge, in front and rear, with guns in
their hands. Ladd, seeing their approach,
and before any explanation of the pur-
pose and authority with which they came,
snapped his gun at Kane, who immedi-
ately fired on Ladd and wounded him.
Ladd then ran into the yard, and there
was shot down. Upon this statement of
the prisoners. themselves, the act would
not be justiiable in any view of the case.
II Russell on Crimes, 81 and 546.) Judge
Kershaw says further:
"If, however, it were granted that the
killing was in fact, as alleged by the pris.
onerl, done in necessary self-defence, that
is a common law defence, and does not
exist by virtue of the process claimed to
be in the hands of the officers, or the
authority of the statute law wherewith
they were clothed. If their official char
acter entered into the case as an ingredi-
ent of such defence, it was only so by
virtue of the common law, and not be-
cause of any statute or process. The
killing would not have been justifable
because of the possession of the warrant
or authority, but by reason of the con-
duct of the deceased, Itwas an act done,
not in execution of the warrant, but in
defence of the person of the individual.
The act, therefore, cannot be said to have
been done under color of the Office or
authority of laws invoked"
In support of this view, Judge Kelshaw
cited the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Mckee vs..
Rains, 10 Wall, %. No Revenue law or
other authority can be produced that
would authorize the act done by the pris,
oners. and this was not, therefore, "a suit
or prosecution" by the act now invoked.
There are other sufficient reasons why
the prisoners were not entitled to the re-
moval claimed. The judicial power Of
the United States is defined and limited
by the Constitution, Article III, Section
2. Judge Kershaw, after reciting this
provision, says: liz
"It is clear that the United States
Courts have no Jurisdiction of the mat
tiers involved in. this controversy, BIZ rea-
son of the character of the parties. 1t
is case between the State of Soutt Car.
olina and citizens thereof, of which as
such there is no grant of jurisdiction. 1t
must arise then, if at all, under the clause
affecting the subject matter of this case,
to wit: that which declares that the judi
cial power shall extend to all cases in Law
and equity arising under the Constitution
and laws Of the United States"
X ~ 4 y
"It has been argued by the learned
counsel that the terms all cases in Law
and equity as employed in the Constitu-
ton, do not import, in legal parlance, o
criminal Jurisdiction. But it has been
uniformly held that such included all
offences against the laws and Constitution
of the United States, and that the Fed
eral Courts had such jurisdiction in oil
cases of that character, whore Congress
has expressly conferred the jurisdiction
and provided the punishment.
Congress has nowhere exercised any
such power, by comforting jurisdiction on
any Court of the United States Of the
crime of homicide committed within the
limits of the States, except where, by
reason of the cession of territory and
Jurisdiction, the United States had ex.
elusive authority.
"But it is claimed that under this Sec.
ton 64S of the Revised Statutes, provid.
ing for the transfer of all cases in which
officers of the Revenue Department are
called in question for an act done andel
color of Office or the authority Of the
Revenue laws, the jurisdiction is con.
ferred by implication. This would be
true if the United States Courts were
Courts of general commou-law juIisdic.
ton; but, as has been already said they
have no power even within the scope Of
the Constitutional grant, except such as
are conferred upon them by stature de.
fining the crime and prescribing pun.
ishment.
"Now, the act done by these prisoners
gave rise to an indictment for murder in
The State Courts. 1t is contended that
the act of Congress cited authorizea the
transfer of the case to the Circuit Court
of the United States for trial. The
Circuit Court could not, under the Con-
stitution, entertain jurisdiction Of the
case when transferred, unless it was q
case arising under the Constitution OF
laws of the United States, as has been
already shown, and this is not ore so
arising"
Judge Kershaw demonstrates that the
jurisdiction claimed is not necessary to
carry into execution any of the powers
granted to the United States, and con-
tends that Congress has not attempted,
in the actin question, to legislate beyond
its constitutional powers. The act says
that, after the transfer, "the cause nhall
thereupon be entered on the docket Of
the Circuit Court, and shall proceed as a
cause originally commenced in that Court" "
Buff it be conceded that Congress had
the right to confer jurisdiction upon the
Circuit Courts to try a case of murder,
committed by an officer of the Revenue
while executing process or discharging
his duty as such, where is the act of Con.
gress that does confer such Jurisdiction ?
Judge Kershaw quotes the decision of
the United States Supreme Court in the
U. S. vs.. Hudson & Good, q Cranch. 80, J
and Kent's Commentaries, upon this