The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-01-11
.aTha Tennessee Case.t

! Here. Il - claimed that the United States
Statute, ss 9,o,rheye mn ertake to define the
crime oi murder or tx is pun ,lsl e lea
The offence OF DAYS. was q. homicide COM
mitted, SO be says, ip ,discharging big duty
as arTevenue otF,cer. He claims, therefore
that q, United States court can ana ongnl 10
fryihiin sor,the fiomicide. sit!The negro MUIR
pdefers III Patrick county va, aver that
fudge TasDs1 refused to ALLOW them negro
.iur Jurors and claim. that therefore q, United
States e,rcnisi court can and ought tostry
for U,1c 1sum.Urur. srur Unc-cuse IS M
der the 641st and the other under the 843d
section Of the. Revised Statutes OF the
9 We give another extract:f2H zgoIl'TSE il
"When we consider that neither the act
of 1866 norany other statute has declared1,
murder a, crime, and fixed the punishment,
the constructionihereg given, ltseems 10, me.
cannot be questioned, especially; When con-
sidered in! connection with section zoos,
title Xxx, being the chapter on crimes ana
which, reads rs That nothing in this title
shall be held to take. away or impair the,
jurisdiction Of the, courts Of the several
States under the laws thereof.,sis7GG ~. ),
~ Now. did the State court have lurlsdlcr
ton r. 1t was one citizen OF State. killing
another citizen, jTithinr the jurisdiction.
Can this, jurisdiction be. onsted after 1t haG
righ,fuIly, attached by an Indictment? Is
not the Jurisdiction protected under 'thls
statute as well as upon general principles,
even if,there is Federal element IN the
offence? ,gl 49,, - my 3s.it
sIf two courts may take cognizancc OF
an offence, the one first getting jurlsdlc-
ton holds it for trial against the other; that
Is, two courts seeking opunish for the same
offence. But il this court is going to Try
Davis it must be for an offence against the
United States, and this trial, unless the
court hang him, Will not prevent the State
court from trying him for under the case
OF Moore Us. The State Of Illinois, IA How
ard, II, and other cases more recently de-
eided, one act may be an offence against
both governments, and each has right TO.
try the offender, and he is not twice put ln
jeopardy for the same offence, but the one
act is t,oo offences-one against INST, eacn gov
eminent. !. ,,...i s,;r Il; .,ua !. an -
+, Every word OF the, above and ,theifoilow7i
ing extracts reads as il uttered IN an argu-
ment in the atrick.eount5, cases: = "up
"Thus far have undertaken to show;
looking at it ffama Federal standpoint, that
this court ought not to take jurisdiction OF
tbis. case: but [ propose nGw,i tocshow the
co,rt: from numerous authorities, that ithas.
no power. to put .Dayis on triaI and punish
hiui.nfa0lf t9i.GY S1ig aai aptDN - = =
!, am In addftion to the tsectson 5338 OF the
Revised Statutes; guaranteeing fhe 3urlsdlcr
siDn of tlieiStatecourts,1I undertake t0'snoW
by deeisionst hatH theuright,to p,sntshofpr
g,n,,rdpr,cds, cone of the implied spoW efS Of
the observation-disclosures not be exercised
,bv the courts ,of,lthaI United States until
there IN as o. sfatutelde6nin the crime and
punishment. kSee kenL's
COM vol. &. isDi 1885, 1885,; United Stntes Us.
H,nlson and fGoodwit,4,7 Crouch 50, 81
limited. States Us. Worrell, 2 Dallas, 3S4.
In. the Iast-named lease the court Circuit
and District Judges sIyere divided
upon 1.-THE q, question as. tto;i whether an
indictment could be sustained = in
a. limited States court for an attempt to-
|, bride commissioners OF the revenue. there
being no act of Congress declaring it a
crime and prescribing Il the punishment.
The Circuit Judge heidi that though the
right to punish for corrupting' q Govern
ment officer was an implied power, yet :" as
| the net charged In the. indictment hid not
! beer, declared by law to be criminal, the
courts Of the, United States could not slls-
tairl. q criminal prosecu ton for #. and until
they. define the, offence and prescribe the
puhishnengt, tbs court l has no jurisdiction
sThis question came before tue Supreme
Court or the United States tor, the first time
fn 1872, In the case OF the United States Us;
Hudson and Goodwin, the Judges In the
Circuit Court having divided upon the
i5duestian is whetherathe 4 Circuit Court bad
tiurisdictjou7i ia punish offences, against 'the
limited States which hasi nafsbesf preuio.asly
fdefnsd and,sspecifcf p,naishnas gEtedi by
statnte.'i heGtSupremei Court Undecided
against the jnrisdiction!p = aEqiao1 si!IA :.
thisis an offence in Rhfehlthe State
alone yistrinterested.G3Itl is aniiinaictment
| againstta citixen for ikil fling another, citizen
Ian the peace of the5 State; and isno more a
CRIME against the United States than MARRY
ling wife, Ispeak in legal sense. 9iThe
| fact that theiaccused was 8 revenue officer,
under thee United States, big mo- means
makes the killing an offence against the
! United States H5i2s &c n 4 !a:s;i 10 Jail
| / = But supp1seI the doctrine is now an.
notsnced, that lha Circuit Court of tho United
| States. upon the affidavit of the prisoner
and the certificate OF his attorney, may lcreSl
4 from the State courts all cases OF murder,
may hem, obbfgy,f burglary and larceny,
and dispose OF them finally by dischargins
EthelpI isoner, with power to issue ia>Hrit o,
lDrohtbitiOn on the State tnd ges, and to pun.
|; ish them for contempt, twillit not be, n;the
destination oEtsmost2 people; an alarming
/ poWers pa naats .,sss sIeesE or. G3:d't'f
| Exactly what Judge RiFgs! did. $50 III !,
| 5tlThe ,i,lefan3orf n hai tfs t],seharped here