Richmond planet. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1883-1938, 1922-06-24

the Copstitution; obstruot it's au-
thorized officers against its will; or
withhold from it, for a moment, the
cognizance of any subject which that
instrument has committed to it."
.. The leading case Is In re Neagle,
135 U. S. and the opinion Of tho
Court by Mr.. Justice Miller with
tho authorities cited Is pertinent.
There Neagle in California had
killed man. He claimed that he
was acting as the duly appointed
guard OF Mr.. Justice Field then on
his way to hold Court, that the man
whom he killed was threatening Jus
tice Fields life, and he killed him
in the discharge OF his duty as
guardian to defend the Judge. The
offence was common law offence
committed in California, and Neagle
was indicted in that State whose
courts were competent to try him
EIe was taken by habeas corpus Is-
sued by the Federal Court from the
custody pf 1.-THE State pfficdrs and
discharged, and this action was up
held by the Supreme Court.
II there Is peace Of the Uuited
States, 1t exists not only for the
Federal officer in the discharge Of
his duty, but for the American cit
izen who Is murdered or robbed in
violation Of the fundamental rights
which are secured to every citizen.
Wells V. Nickles, 104 U. s. 444, is
a case very much in point. The facts
are thus stated by Mr.. Justice MIL
Ter in the Neagle case Obs U. s.
PIP. 60-66).
THAT WAS n case in which n class
OF men appointed by local land off,
GERS, under instructions from the
Secretary of the Interior, having
found a large quantity Of this tim
Der cut down from the forests Of
the United States and lying where
it was cut, seized It. The question
OF the title to this property coming
in controversy between Wells and
Nickles, 1t became essential to In
quire into the aut hority Of these
timber agents Of the government
thus to seize the timber cut by
trespassers on its lands. The Court
said:
THE effort we have made to as
certain and fix the authority of these
timber agents by any positive pro-
vision Of law has been unsuccess-
full But the Court, notwithstand-
ing there was no special statute for
II, held that the Department Of the
Interior, acting under the idea Of
protecting from depreciation timber
on the lands Of the government, had
gradually come to assert the right
to seize what is cut and taken away
from them wherever 1t can be traced
and in aid Of this the registers and
receivers OF the Land Office, had by
instructions from the Secretary of
the Interior, been constituted agents
OF the United States for these pur-
poses, with power to appoint special
agents under themselves. And She
Court upheld the authority OF the
Secretary Of the Interior to make
these rules and regulations for the
protection OF the public lands"
No one can doubt that Congress
could exercise the authority, which
In that case was conceded to cab
met officer. 1t could pass q law to-
protect tho timber which belongs to
tho Gnitea Stntea.' and to punish
the thief who should stea! 1T. IL
SoNNi No IIIo IuSl
was an offense under the laws Of tho
State where tho timber was cut,
because the United States has the
right to protect It's property by its
own officers and it's own courts. 1t
cannot be left to depend on State
officers and State courts who may
sympathiZe with their own fellow
citizens against the Government.
State courts and their juries could
not have been relied on to enforce
the Fugitive Slave Law.
Has the United States a right to
protect tree, and no right to pro-
tect man? Has 1t no interest in
one-f1fth Of its people, potential SOL
diers, actual Taxpayers, men and
women, the best asset that a nation
can have? We should be slow to
admit that tree is more valuable
to the United States than an Amer
lean citizen.
Let us suppose that this question
had arisen before the Civil War
while these colored citizens were
slaves and therefore property, that
In building a fort or other public
work the government had contracted
with slave owner, to furnish slave
labor, that some labor organization
anxious to discourage their compe-
tition had attacked and killed many
OF tho slaves, as Chinese laborers
were attacked years ago at Rock
Springs, could not Congress have
Passed laws to protect the slaves and
punish those who attacked them in
the Federal courts, though all that
was done was criminal under the
State laws. Were Negroes as slaves
entitled to protection which Is denied
to them rs freemen, or would such
a law have been sustained only be-
cause the attack interfered with
work prosecuted by the United
States?
Must we admit that property Is
moro sacred in our country than hu-
man life, that the United States can
protect Its officers, and not it's citi
zensI against murder and robbery,
that there is peace OF the United
States for the judge or the marshal,
and none for the private citizen.
Under imperial Rome the cry Tt
n m Roman ritjzop' roc n shield