Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1889-09-05

Court that possesses Jurisdiction der3v.
ed Immediately from the Consultations
that all other Courts created by the
Government possess only such juris-
dictlon as is given by the power that
creates th em and could be vested only
with the powers ceded to the Govern
ment; that Jurisdiction of crimes
against the State is not one OF them.
and that il is necessary for Congress
| to define the crime, afilx the punish
ment and distinctly confer the juris-
diction upon the Court.
In kent's Commentaries the question
is fully and incisively presented and
the decision of the Supreme Court in
the Hudson g. Goodwin case .is COM
sidered to De q safe and sound princi-
ple.n Kent says that "neither the
Constitution nor the judicial acts foun-
ded upon ii. give the Federal Courts
a general jurisdiction in criminal cases
affecting the officers of government.
Such q wide construction
would be transferring legislative power
to the judiciary and vest it with al
most unlimited Jurisdiction, for where
is the act that night not. in some dis
tant manner, be connected with the
Constitution or the laws Of the United
States?" Again Kent says that sit
rests alone in the discretion of Com
gress to throw over the persons and
and character of the officers OF the
government. acting In their official
stations, q higher protection than that
afforded by the laws of the States:
and when laws are made for that pur-
pose, the Federal Courts will be
charged with the duty of executing
thsm." AS we have already stated.
there has been no act of CoDgraes and
no decis ion of the Supreme Court.
since the decision in the Hudson IL
Goodwin case on which Kent bases
his comments, that has in any degree
modified the powers of the Federal
Courts in such cases.
II Congress had authorized the pro-
lection of United States Judges by
Marshals or by others assigned To the
duty by the attorney General or by
any other proper authority, and con-
ferred upon the United States Courts
the jurisdiction to try offenses arising
from the acts of such officers, the Field
and Nagle cases would be brought
within the jurisdiction of the Federal
Courts; but in the absence of such au-
thority conferred by Congress, the kill
ing of any person within State by a
Federal Judge, Marshal or other off,
rer is solely an offense against the
State and can be tried only in the
State tribunals. 1t is expressly decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States, as accepted and commented on
by Kent, that the Federal Courts have
no jurisdiction whatever beyond the
in offenses clearly con-
ferred by Congress. and Jurisdiction
of crimes against the State was not one
of them"
The people are specially sensitive an
10 all attempts OF Federal authority to
strained or doubtful powers
ffecting the Jurisprudence Of the
States. and even In the extreme neces-
stiles OF war no such jurisdiction was
action of United States Circuit Judge
Sawyer. If persisted In, it would be
,ne OF the boldest judicial usurpations
,f modern times, and would unsettle
The criminal Jurisprudence of all the
States. The absurd assumption that
Justice Field is the United States
Court. in his person, wherever he may
%, and that the United States Mar
hal protecting him is always in the
presence and under the immediate
of the Court, 10 the only
heory on which there could be SEM
,lance of authority for Judge Sawyer
o take the accused parties from the
of the State; and i'm all the
vide realm of legal fiction there is no
uch assumption in this government
f liberty conserved by law. IL Judge
sawyer would perform his plain duty,
Ie will, after argument on the question,
emand the Field and Nagle cases to
he State Courts for determiuation.-
Times.