Daily press and Dakotaian. [volume] (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1880, 1879-10-23
SUPREME COURT DECISION.
An Action Involving the Removal Of a
Case From state to b
Federal Court.

An Action Involving th0 Removal OF .
Case From astateto b
Federal Court.
Washington, Oct. 21-Supreme court de-
cision In the case of the State Of Tennes-
Gee W. j. n. Davis:
This case arises out OF an indictment In
Tennessee state court of the defendant,
James n. Davis. . deputy collector OF in
ternal revenue, for the murder of James B.
Haynes. . citizen of Tennessee in August,
In 1878. Davis filed this petition for certi-
orarl 10 the United States circuit court for
the middle district of Tennessee, alleging.
among other things, that the killing was
done In self.defence to save his own life,
and that Ut the time the act for which he
was indicted was committed he was an
officer of the United States, to.wit, deputy
collector of internal revenue, and was en-
gagged In the discharge of his official duties.
Upon the return of the certiorari the state
of Tennessee, by its encouragement, NOV
ed that the case be remanded to the state
court in which the indictment was found.
The motion was heard before Hon. John
Baxter circuit Judge, and Hon. Conslly F.
Trigg, district judge, presiding. The jus,i-
ces were divided In their Opinions upon
the following questions, which they have
ordered certified to this cour for adjudi.
cation.
First, is the indictment of a revenue off,
Ger found in a state court for murder, under
the facts alleged in the petition for removal
in this case, removable to the court under
section 643 of the revised statutes of the
United States?
Second, If removable from the state court,
is there any mode of procedure in the trial
prescribed BY the act of congress?
Third, if NOT, can the trial of the guilt or
innocence of the defendant be had in the
United States circuit court?
The main question is, in the words of At
torney-G General Devens, in brief, substan-
tally the same a. that which has for over a
century been debated in congress and before
the country, viz: Whether the United.
States constitution is frame of government
created BY the people and acting directly
from and upon the individual. OF is it mere
ly . compact or league of sovereign states.
Those VINO insist that the general govern
ment is purely federal, and not national, in
its character are logically compelled to
deny the right to remove any cause from a
state to . federal court. and to declare the
act of 1888, section 20, unconstitutional,
because if any right of removal exists it
must extend alike to civil and criminal
cases, and the extent to which as we'll as the
time and manner in which it shall be exer-
cised whenever the federal laws or their
execution is concerned, is aquestion of ex.
pediency and not of power.
The attorneV.gensrsl of, Tennessee, In be.
half of the state, maintains first, that the
words "crimfnal prosecution " in section
543 of the revised statutes have reference 10
the acts Of revenue officers therein declared
to be offenses and not to prosecutions for
murder, which Is not an offense BY the re-
vised statutes except upon the high seas,
etc. Second, that If congress intended by
said section TO remove trials from state 10
federal courts the act is unconstitutional.
There is neither a express nor an implied
power in the constitution giving 10 federal
courts Jurisdiction of crimes which are Of
lenses alone against the state Third. ifthe
section were constitutional, the United
States circuit courts conld not try q case Of
murder because they -have no common law
jurisdiction in criminal causes. and because
congress has not by legislative act made
murder . crime or affixed . punishment, ex.
cept for murder upon the high seas. in the
district Of Columbia and in the forts arse
mails and zdcckysrds. ArEunent will, b
fcontinued 70 morrow. z
. ll - ENsL ar ~