Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1878-07-27
The Conflict of Authority i'm Soutt
Carolina,

The South Carolina troubles, caused by the
efforts OF the United States government to en-
1Orce the internal revenue laws In that state
seem likely to result in bringing the state and
general government into open collision The
event which carries the dispute between the
nited States and local authorities to a seri-
Gus pitch, is the recent ARRAY in PIckens
county, in which an alleged Illicit diStiller was
shot and killed, il is claimed, in self-defence,
by the revenue officers who were about TO ar
rest him. The four officials Immediately sur
rendered themselves, and were indicted for
murder by the state. A wri. of hdbedS corpus
was issued by the United States authorities
and formal demand made for the custody of
the prisoners which was refused No further
action was taken at the time TO assert the
jurisdiction of the general government, and
on the same day the question of transferring
The case to the United States court came up
before Judge keTShaw, of the GreenyilIe
rs. c. circuit court. The arguments for
The transfer were based on the 6l3d section of
the Revised Statutes, which provides that in
any civil suit or criminal pros ecutiOn against
an officer appointed under or &C ing by author
1ty OF any revenue law of the United States,
or against any person acting under or by
authority of any such officer, on account of
any act done under color of his Office or on
account of any right, title or authority claimed
by such off ;er the suit or prosecution may at
any time before the trial or final hearing be re-
moved for trial into the Us circuit court The
Judge in his decision refused the m Dtion for
removal on the ground that the case in ques-
tlon did not come under the stature, and sug-
gested that if it were of the nature contem.
plated by the statute, it could not under the
constitution, come before the circuit court.
An appeal from this decision to the state su
preme court, and thence to the United States
Supreme Court, would have confined the issue
between the general and state govern n3ntS to
IFS strictly legal aspect, and this is the Course
which The state was anxious to have pursued.
But While al the tedious delays of law were
continually pOStpOning the decision of the
case to the future, the revenue officers would
llnger in prison, bail having been refused, under
4 jurisdiction whose authority in such cases
The nlted States government denies. It's con-
SeGuent DIT termination not to allow the case
TO go to the state Supreme Court, but to
enforce with prOmptneSS and vigor the rec1g-
hilton OF the writ OF hGbeaS corpus, previou ,ly
refused by the sheriff, removes the question
from strictly legal ground and introduces
Jew dangers into the dispute. Ii the writ b.
resisted second time, the United States
authorities, IN the assertion of their authority,
will be bound TO employ a Suffi ,ient force to
take possession of the revenue officers and
hold them IN custody. The warning OF Judge
herShaW in his decision is worthy of note in
this connection: "A resort, however, to the
compulsory power claimed for the circuit
court might transfer the question from the
quiet arena OF the court to the executive de-
partment OF the government, and lead to great
and consequences greatly to be dep
reeated." If the government vigorOu sly m liu-
tains its jurisdiction in the m utter, and takes
possession OF the prisoners at once by per.
emptOry order, or by force, great exsi.em ,nt
and, perhaps, resistance involving blood she'd
VIII result. The situation may Well cause I'm.
eaSiIeSs.