The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-25
THE LADD j MURDER 10 C CASE.

s. At a late meeting of the Cabinet in
Washington, this case was made the.sub-
jject Of a Cabinet consultaion, and it is
reported that under the advice Of Attor-
ney- General Deyens, it was determined to
ssue out, under direction of the United
States Courts, a writ Of Ha6sas Corpus,
the objec. Of which Is to take the Re-
venue mulderefs from, the custody of tho
Stats officers, and commit them to that
of the United States Marshal, under the
direction of the United States Circuit
Court. The infamy Of this proceeding is
evident, when it is considered that the
,objectis not the protection Of the inno-
cent and tue punishment Of the guilty,
but the protection and liberation ofmen
charged with murder without trial. This
Infamous end was accomplished in the
case of Mattison, the Revenue murderer,
who had his case transferred from the
State to the Federal Court, and there
admitted to.bail, and although years
have passed, he has never been tried and
never will be, and even if he should be
tried in the United States Court and
found guilty, he could not be punished for
murder in that. court. What was accom-
;plished in the Mattison case, is now at
in the case of the murderers of
young Ladd, and tits to be seen if our
courts will remain firm and maintain the
majesty ofths Constitution and laws Of
the United States and of South Carolina,
and thus afford protection to the lives of
the people, orby yielding, place the
lives of our people at the mercy Of irres-
ponsible Revenue officers, We hope our
courts willremain firm, and the people
will sustain them. We do not see how,
,ifthe Sheriff having in custody the MUIR
derers should remain firm, the United
States authorities can obtain the custody
of them by virtue of the writ of Hcbeas
c6pus. The court cannot decree the
custody of the prisoners until they arc
actually produced in court. But suppose
.the sheriff should decline to produce
them, and in reply to a rule to show
cause why he should notbe declared in
contempt Of court should show for cause,
that he held the prisoners under the
Federal and State Constitution and laws,
and by virtue of the decision of a court
of competent and exclusive jurisdiction
of the cause that the United State Cir
cult Court had no right to rcviea0 or an-
.at.k tsat decision, and that until that de-
.cision was set aside by either the Supreme
Court; ofthe State or of the United
States, he regarded it as his sworn duty
to retain the custody Of the prisoners.
The decision of the Circuit Court as to
the suficiency of the cause shown would.
be made by the court, subject to an ap-
peal to the Supreme Court of the United
States, but in the mean time the prison
.ers would remain in the custody of the
sheriff. This is the course the case
should take if the writ of Habeas Corpus
should be issued but is it likely that the
Federal officers, knowing that this would
not set the murderers free, without trial,
permit it? Is it not more than proba-.
BILE that they will pursue the same course
pursued in reference to the State Board
of Canyassers, direct the Marshal to take
the; custody ofthe prisoners, and then
discharge them; or as: in the case of
Alatt;son, bail them on their own recog-
ni5snce and then never try them. We
protest against this outrage upon law,
Justice and civilization, against the in
reference with the State judiciary, cloth
Cd with fun power to try and determine
the case, by q court with no power to try
and panisa the guilty; rhese interference
IS for misehieE and only misrhief. it.
Should distinctly nndent ntood hat our
Mode xre IN abiding cd and that
I :