The New York herald., 1879-10-22
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT.


THE QUESTION OF REMOVING CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION FROM A STATE TO A FEDERAL
CoURr.
WAsHINGToN, Oct. 81. 1879.
The case Of Taylor Strauder plaintiff in error VS..
The State of West Virginia argued in the United
States Supreme Court in error to the supreme
Court of Appeals OF the State of West Virginia.
Argument continued by Robert White and J. w.
Green for defendant in error and concluded by At
torney-General Devens for plaintiff in error. This
is another Of the colored jury cases, differing
from those previously argued chiefly by virtue
OF the fact that the discrimination against
negroes in The selection of jurors is in the
present case made by State law instead of by the
discretionary power Of State judges. The ground
covered by the arguments is very much the same as
that covered in ex parte, The Commonwealth Of
Virginia, argued last week.
No. 720. The State of Tennessee, plaintiff vs..
James M. Davs.-Upon division of opinion in the
United States Circuit Court for the Middle District
Tennessee. Argument commenced by b. j. Sea for
plaintiff. and continued by Assistant Attorney General
Smith for defendant. This rises out of the in
dictment in Tennessee State court OF the defend
ant, James NJ. Davis deputy collector of Internal
revenue tor the murder OF James b. Haynes cit
izen OF Tennessee. On the 29th OF August, 1873.
Davis filed his petition tor certiorari in the
United States Circuit Court Tor the Middle
things. that 'the killing done in self-de-
fence totyxe his own ite and that at tho time the
officer OF the United States-to w.t. deputy col
lector OF internal revenue-and engaged III the
discharge OF his official duties. Upon the return
OF the certiorari the state of Tennessee. its
torney General moved that the case be remanded
| to the State Court i'll which the indictment was
found. The motion was heard before John Baxter,
Circuit Court Judge. and Connolly +. 1rigg,
District Judge. presiding. Tho judges were
divided in opnion upon the following Guestions
which they have ordered certified to this Court for
adjudication:-First, is an Indictment OF revenue
officer found in state court. for murder. under the
facts alleged in the petition for removal in this
movable to this Court under section G43 OF the
Revised Statutes of the United States? Second If
removable from the state Court Is there any mode
and manner of procedure IN tho trial prescribed by
the act Of Congress? Third and II not. can trial
OF the guilt or innocence OF the defendant be
had in the United States Circuit Court? The main
question to be discussed is, i'll the words OF Attor
ney General Devens' brief. substantially the same
us that which has for half u century been de-
bated III Congress and before the country-viz.
Whether the United States constitution is frame of
government created by the people. and acting di-
merely compact or league of sovereign
States? Those who insist that tho general
government is partly federal, and not national,
in character logically compelled to deny the
right to remove any cause from the Strte to the
Federal Court and to declare the of 1872 section
70, unconstitutional because if any right of
moval exists 1t must extend alike to civil and crimi
nal cases. and the extent to which, well the
time and manner in which. it shall be
cised whenever federal laws their execu-
ton is concernod) is question of expediency
and not OF power The Attorney General of Ten
nessee, i'll behalf of the State, maintains,
however. FIRST that the words criminal prosecu-
ton in section 6i3 OF the Revised Statutes have ref
erence acts of officers therein declared
be offences and not to prosecutions for murder.
which is not an offence by the Revised Statutes,
cept upon the high &c Second that If Congress
intended by said section to remove trials from the
State the federal the act is
There is neither an express an implied power in
the constitution giving federal courts jurisdiction
of crimes whch offences alone against the State.
Third ii said section were constitutional the United
States Circuit courts could not try ease OF murder.
because they have NO common law Jurisdiction IN
criminal and because Congress has not by
legislative act made IN urder crime af xed pun
ishment. except murder the high seas in the Dis
trict of Columbia and in forts. arsenas and dock
yards.
The argument will be continued tomorrow.