The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-11-18
WAR TAX CASE
SENT BACK TO
JUSTICES COURT
Elaborate Opinion by
Judge Morrow.

United States Circuit Judge Morrow re-
manded yesterday to the Justices Court
the suit Of b. Johnson against Wells
Fargo & Co. Johnson refused TO pay for
a revenue war stamp and the company
refused 10 accept from him a package
for delivery.
Judge Morrow delivered a lengthy and
exhaustive opinion. from which are taken
the following extracts on salient points:
b. Johnson VS.. Wells. Fargo Co.-This
Is an action TO recover damages In the
sum OF nifty dollars for the alleged neglect
OF the defendant. a common carrier, 10
receive and transport a certain package OF
photographs offered and rendered by plant
IN for conveyance and transportation. Ths
case was originally removed TO this court
under the act OF March 3. 1851 GA Stats.
55Z). as corrected by the act Of August 10.
1855 Us Stats. 4S3), and the Jurisdiction OF
this court was invoked by the defendant
under section s2s OF the Revised Statutes
providing that the Circuit Courts shall have
original jurisdiction OF all suits at law
in equity arising under any act providing
for revenue. The court held that although
the court might have such original turisdic-
ton Of the case. IL could not acquire that
jurisdiction under the act Of removal where
IL did not appear from the plaintiffs state
ment Of his cause OF action that IL was one
arising under the constitution, laws or
statutes OF the United States and that
more than $1,000, exclusive OF interest and
COSTS involved. The case was accord
ingly remanded TO the State court.
The case Is now here upon writ OF
certiorari, under section 643 OF the Revised
Statutes. When the writ was granted upon
the petition Of the defendant the question
or Jurisdiction was reserved 70 be further
considered upon a motion TO Quash the writ
That motion having been made by the
plaintiff and also a motion 10 remand the
question Of Jurisdiction is now before the
court for determination. and the solution
OF the question depends upon the constrllc-
ton 10 be given TO section CAB OF the Re-
vised Statutes.
suits and prosecutions against officers and
persons acting under authority OF such
officers, on account OF acts done under the
revenue and registration laws OF the United
II is clear that the writ OF certiorari
provided FOR In section e43 OF the Revised
statutory writ performing the office and
function OF an order OF removal and the
Jurisdiction OF the Circuit Court TO issue
the writ ana entertain the suit after such
removal is dependent entirely upon the pro
visions OF the statute as applied 20 the
The first part OF the section points out
distinctly the two classes OF persons who
are entitled to have certain suits against
them removed from any State court TO a
United states Circuit Court namely % any
officer appointed under or acting by author-
ity OF any revenue law OF the United States.
ana % any person acting under or by
authority OF any such officer The char
acter OF the suits is then described and
removal limited to those suits against the
ofncer or person acting under his authority
on account OF any act done under color ~
office or color Of law and on arc unt OF
any right. title authority claimed nv
such officer or other person. Clearly the
other person" last referred TO is person
acting under the authority OF a revenue
officer. since only such n person is men
toned In the first part OF the section as
being entitled TO have suits which NAV
be brought against him removed 10 the
Federal court. The fact that the revised
section introduces the person acting under
authority OF a revenue officer and gives
him the right OF removal ~ n suit against
him and omits the other person. nro
vided In the corresponding mart OF section
OF the act of March 3 1852 appears 70
be clear and consistent revision OF that
section. The purpose OF the statute is ~
protect the revenue officers % the Gov
eminent In the line Of their official du,tas
and those who are employed IN net under
them in the perform OF such dut,-..
hut further than providing this necezsarv
protection 10 the administration ~ he
revenues. the Federal Government has ma
interest In the business affairs OF tn. MOO
pie incidentally brought within range ~ tbe
tariff system. Where the oues.,o,
~ jurisdiction Is doubtful the rule now, Is
n resolve that doubt against the iurisdIc
tion ~ the Federal courts.
Suit remanded IN the Justices Court ~
the city and county ~ San Francisco