Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-10-22
U. s. SUPREME COURT.
Argument i'm Taylor Strauder's
Case Concluded.

Court, NO. 100, ldNlOI CliduuCl, pam
tiff in error, VS.. the State OF West Nlr-
ginia, in error to the Supreme Court OF
Appeals of the State of West Virginia.
The argument was concluded by At
torney General Devens for the plaintiff
in error. This is another of the colored
Jury cases, ,differingfrom those previously
argued, chiefly by virtue OF the fact that
discrimination against negroes in the
selection OF Jurors is in the present case
made by State law instead of the dis
cretionary power OF State judges. The
ground covered by the argument is very
much the same as that covered in &c
pdrts the Commonwealth of Virginia ar
gued last week.
The Davis Case.
No. 72O. State of Tennessee, plaintiff,
vs.. James III. Davis, upon the division
OF opinion in the L. S. Circuit Court for
the middle district of Tennessee. The
The argument commenced in this case
arises out of the indictment in a Ten
nessee State court of the defendant,
James NJ. Davis, a deputy collector OF
internal revenue, for the murder of
James B. Haynes, citizen of Tenn essee,
i'm August, 1873. Davis filed his peti-
ton for a certioridri in the u. :. Circuit
Court for the middle district of Tennes-
see, alleging, among other things, that
"the killing was done in self-defense to
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 collec.
tor OF internal revenue, and was en-
gagged in the discharge OF his official du-
ties" Upon the return OF the certiOridri
to the State of Tennessee by its Attor-
ney-General, it was moved that the
case be remanded to the State
court IN which the indictment was
'Ound The motion was heard before
Hon. John Baxter, Circuit Judge, and
Hon. Conally +. Trigg, District Judge
presiding. The Judges were divided in
opinion upon the following questions,
which they have ordered certified to the
Court for adjudication: First-Is an
indictment of a revenue officer found in
State court, for murder, under the
facts alleged in the petition for removal
in this case, removable to the Court un-
der section 643 of the Revised Statutes of
the United Statesp SeCOnd-If remova-
BILE from a State court, is there any mode
or manner of procedure in the trial pre-
scribed by act of Congress? Third
And if not, can the trial ofguit or inno-
cence of the defendant be had in the
United States Circuit Court? The main
question to be discussed is, in the words
OF Acknowledgement Deven's brief, sub
stantialy the same az that which has
for over half a century been debated in
Congress and before the country, viz
Whsther the United States Constitution
is a form of Government, created
by the people and acting directly from
and upon the individual, or is merely a
compact or league of the sovereign
States. Those who insist that the Gen
eral Government is purely federal and
not national in its character, are logical
" compelled to deny the right to re-
move any cause from a State to the
Federal Court, and to declare the act OF
1879, Section 20, unconstitutional, be-
cause of any right ii removal
exists it must extend alike to civil and
criminal cases, and the extent to which
it as well as thetime and manner in which
it shall be exercised whenever Federal
laws or their execution is concerned is
a question OF expediency and not OF
power. The Attorney General of Ten
nessee, in behalf of the State, maintains
first, that the words criminal prosecu-
ton" in section 6l3 OF the Revised
Statutes, have reference 10 the acts OF
revenue officers, therein declared to be
Oflenses and not to prosecutions for
murder, which is not an offense by the
Revised Statutes, except upOnthe high
seas, etc. Second-That if Congress in
tended by said section, TO remove
trials from State to Federal courts,
the act is unconstitutional. There is
neither an express nor an implied power
i'm the Constitution giving to Federal
courts jurisdiction OF crimes which are
ohenses alone against the State. Third
If said section were Constitutional
the United States Circuit Courts could
not try a case of murder, because they
have no common law jurisdiction in
criminal cases, and because Congress
has not, by legislative act, made murder
Il crime or affixed punishment except
for murder on the high seas, in the Dis
trict of Columbia and in forts, arsenals
and dock-yards.
Argument will be continued to-mor-