The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-10-22
US. sUPREME COURT.
Taylor stFaudeF's Case Argued and snh.
Initted-Anoiher Case Involving the
4 Question Of state RighIA


Initted-AnoIheF Case Involving the
Question of state Rights.
WlmiSaToN, October 81. = Supreme
Court, case No. 75S, Taylor strauder plain
til In error VS.. State of West Virginia, il
error TO the Supreme Court Of Appeals o.
the State Of West Virginia. Argument
concluded by Attorney General Deyent
for plaintiff in error. This Is another Of
the colofed iurycases, differing from those
previously argued, chiefly by virtue OF the
fact that discrimination against negroes in
the selebti6hof JURORS, is in the present
case made by State law instead Of by the
Discretionary power OF the State Judges.
The ground covered by The argument Is
very much the same as that covered In "a
parte the Commonwealth OF Virginia
argued last week. a41
No. 720, State Of Tennessee, plaintiff, vs.
James NJ. Davis, upon division OF opin-
ion In the United States Circuit Court for
the Middle District Of Tennessee. Argu.
ment commenced. This case arises out
OF the indictment In q Tennessee State
Courttof defendant, James NJ. Davis, a
Deputy Collector OF Internal Revenue, for
the murder Of James B. Haynes, citizen
ot Tennessee, In August, 1878. Davis filed
his petition for ceFtiorarl in the United
States Circuit Court for the Middle Dis.
trict OF Tennessee, alleging among other
things that '.'the killing was done In self.
defense 10 save his own life, and that at
the time the act for which he was indicted
was committed he was an officer OF the
United States, to-wit: a Deputy Collector
Of Internal Revenue, and was engaged in
the discharge Of his Official duties. Upon
the return OF the certiorari the State OF
Tennessee, by It's Attorney General moved
the case be remanded TO the State Court
in which the Indictment was found. The
motion was heard before Hon. John Bax.
ter, Circuit Judge, and Hon. Conally F
Trigg, District Judge, presiding. The
Judges were divided In their opinion up.
on the following questions, which they
have ordered certified to the court for ad.
jndicalion: First-Is an indictment OF al
revenue officer found In State Court for
murder, under facts alleged in the peti.
tionfor removal in this case, removableto
the court under Section 84S OF the Re.
yised Statutes OF the United States? Sec.
ond II removable from the State Court, Is
there any mode OF procedure in the
trial prescribed by act Of Congress. Third :
and, II not, can the trial Of guilt or limo.
cenCe OF the defendant be had in the
United States Circuit Court. The main
question TO be discussed is in the words
Of Attorney General Deven's brief, sub.
the same as that which has, for
over half a century, been debated in Con.
gres and before the country, viz: whether
the United States Constitution Is form
Of government created by the people,
and acting directly from and upon the in.
5ividual, or isitmere a compact or league OF
the sovereign states. Those who insist that
the general government is purely federal
and not national in It's character are logi-
cally compelled to deny the right to re-
move any cause from the State to the Fed
eral Court, and to declare the act of 1880.
section 20, unconstitutional becausei II any
right Of -removalgexists, it must extend
alike to the civil aud criminal cases,
and extend to which, as well as the time
and mannerin which 1t shall be exercised.
Whenever Federal laws or their execution
Is concerned 1t is q question OF expedien-
cy, and not OF power. The Attorney Cen
era! Of Tennessee, in behalf Of the State,
first, that the words Criminal
in Section 643 OF the Re.
Vised Statutes, have reference to the
acts Of revenue officer, therein
declared to be offsnses, and not to prose.
cutions for murder, which is not an
oifense by the Revised Statutes except
upon the high seas, ETC.. second, that II
Congress intended by said section TO
move trials from State to Federal courts,
the act is unconstitutional. There Is
neither an express nor an implied power
in the Constitution giving to Federal
Courts Jurisdiction Of crimes which are
otfenses againsta State; third, II said sec.
ton were constitutional, the u. S. Circuit
Courts could not try tease OF murder be.
cause they have no common law jurisdic-
ton in criminal cases, and because Con-
gress has not, by legislative act, made
murder crime, or affixed punishment,
except for murder on the high seas, in the
District Of Columbia, and in forts, arsen.
ais and dock.yards.
Argument WILDE continued tomorrow.