The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1878-07-25

upon like reasoning it is manifest that il
cannot be claimed TO have been doae
under color of amy such law or 'on &C.
count of any right, title or authority
claimed by such officer or other person
under any such law There being nc
such law as authorized the act, no such
authority could be claimed under the
law. 1t follows that the law set up does
not embrace. this case under this provis.
ion" IL was argued, however, that the
officers, having o warrant authorizing an
arrest and being resisted by Ladd in the
execution Of that process, had right to
s!ay him. This is misapprehensio OF
the law. The circumstances, rs set forth
b. the prisoners, do not make such a case
Ct resistance as would justify the killing.
After having lain for some time in am
bush the prisoners determined TO make n
charge" upon Ladd's house, and did so
charge, in front and rear, with guns ia
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 immeii.
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 iustifiable in any view Of the case,
Il Russell on Crimes, 81 and 54G.) Judge
Kershaw says further:
! "If, however, it re granted that the
killing was in fact, as alleged by the pris.
oners, done in necessary seIf-defence. that
is 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 80 by
virtue of the common law, and not be.
cause Of any statute or process. The
killing would not have been iustifiable
because of the possession of the warrant
or authority, but by reason of the con.
duct of the deceased, 1t was 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 Kershaw
cited the decision of the United States
Supreme Court in the case of Mckee ys
Rains, 10 Wall, %. No Revenue law or
other authority can be produced that
would authorize the act done by the pris
oncrs, and this was not, therefore, "a suit
or prosecution" by the act now invoked
| There are other sufficient reasons why
the prisoners we're not entitled to the re.
movai claimed. The judicial power OF
The United States is defined and limited
by the Constitution, Article III, Section
2. Judge Kershaw, after recitipg this
provision, says:
"It is clear that the United States
Courts have no jurisdiction of tho mat
ters involved in. this controversy, by rea-
son Of the character of the parties. II
is case between the State of South Car.
olina and citizens thereof, of which as
such there is no grant of Jurisdiction. II
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 il, law
and equity arising under the Constitution
and laws Of the United States"
at has b en- argued by the learned
COUNSEL that the terms all cases In leS
and equity as employed in the Constiiu.
tion, 40 not import, in legal parlaDcc. O
criminal jurisdiction. But it has been
uniformly held that such included all
Offences against tho laws and Constitution
OF the United States, and that the Fed.
ernl Courts had such Jurisdiction in al
cases of that character, where Congress,
mas expressly conferred the ji;Tisdic:ioi
and provided the punishment.
Congress has nowhere exercised auy
such power, by comforting jurisdiction or
any Court of the United Ststes. of tho
crime Of homicide committed within the
limits of the States, except where, by
reason of the cession of territory an6
Jurisdiction, the United States had ex.
elusive authority.
! "But it is claimed that undLr Ghis Sec.
tion GAS of the Revised Statutes, proyid.
ing for the transfer of all cases In which
officers of the Revenue Department. are
called in question for an act done under
color of Office or the authority Of ths
Revenue laws, the Jurisdiction Is con
fetred by implication. This would ),
true if the United States Cour' wer.
Courts of general common-law iurisdic
ton; tut, as has been already SAID, sshI;sI;
have no power even within the scope O.
the Constitutional gsant, except such q,
are conferred upon them by statute de
iining the crime and prescribing pun
ishment.
"Now, the act done by ehese prisoner,
gave rise to an indictment for murder ir
| the S:ate Courts. It is contended tha,
the act of Congress cited authorizes the
transfer of the case to the Circuit Cour
Of the United States Jor trial. The
| Circuit Court could not, under the Con.
stitution, entertain Jurisdiction of tho
case when transferred, unless it was !
case arising under the Constitution oJ
laws Of the United States, az has beer
J already shown, aud this is not one Sc
arising,".t sa -.
Judge Kershaw demonstrates that thu
jurisdiction claimed is not necessary tc
carry into execution any of the powerf
granted to the United States, and con.
tends that Congress has not attempted
in the actin question, to Iegislate beyond
its constitutional powers. The act saws
that, after the transfer, ''the cause shall
thereGpOE be entered on the docket O;
the Circuit Court, and shall proceed ma >
cause originally oo.rmesced in that Cbyrt.' y
Buff it no conceded that Congress had
the right to confer Jurisdiction upon tbe
Circnit Courts to try case of murder,
committed ny an vmcer OF the Seyen,re
while executing process or discharting
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. Va. Hudson & Good, t7 Cranch, 32ll
| and Kent's Commentaries, upon this
point, and RRys: "Ip no s lase has Con.
gress failed, when It attempted TO confer
Jurisdiction Of d criminal offence. to make
the act O crime, 20 affix punishment tC
it, and to declare the Court which shail
nave itIriani6tiT5,n 10 NA-L..- IL, ~