Year: 1879

laws OIL tnc Unitcu SGteS Nus rcSuitcu |
from the institution of numerous unjust !
terminal prosecutions, in the State courts
"agoinst the officers of the United States by |
"violntors of the internal revenue laws and |
their friends. Especially has this been the
case in North Carolina, South Carolina, and |
State officers and even judges on the bench
have lent the weight of their influence to
weaken the authority of the officers and
" laws of the United States.n


AS the law now stands on the statute
book the Government has been able to de-
feat the object of these numerous unjust
criminal prosecutions to which Commits
sioner RAUM refers by causing them to be
removed to the United States courts.
There is no doubt that in nearly every
instance those prosecutions were instituted
at the instance of violators of the revenue
laws in order to deter the revenue officers
from vigorously performing their duties.
In South Carolina recently q deputy col
lector Of internal revenue was indicted in
Stale court for larceny, because he had
seized some tobacco which was improperly
stamped. But for the removal of his case
to the United States court this officer
would, without doubt, have been convicted
and punished, and the consequence would
have been that revenue offenders in that
locality could have safely defed the reve-


nue. laws, as no one would have ventured
to enforce them.


In the debate in the House last Thursday


upon the bill in question Mr.. MCLANE, a
Democratic member from Maryland, argued
that because the United States courts had


no common law jurisdiction, it was there


fore a monstrous proposition to contend
that the Federal court could take out of the


jurisdiction Of State court citizen of the


State indicted for an offense at the common


law, and then try him in the United States


court under the indictment in the State


court Mr. McLANE misunderstands the


question ut issue. 1t is not claimed that


the Federal Government has q right to take


from State the power to try citizen of
that State, indicted in her courts, for an


offense at common law; but it is claimed
that the Federal Government has right to


take from any State one Of its officers, or


any other person acting under the authority


and laws Of the United States, who
is accused of an act which his
obligation toward the United States


compelled him to perform. If merely


accusing an officer of common law ofIense


is sufficient to deprive the Federal court of
Jurisdiction in the case, then it becomes i'm
| ta 10 IF ttn


States in any locality where that law may


be obnoxious. Mr.. MCLANE, in asserting


that the effect of the present law is to per-


nit the Federal court to take from the juris-


diction of State court citizen of the


State indicted for an olfense at common


law forgets that in cases arising under the


law which his party is endeavoring to re-


peal, while the State alleges that the act


with which a party may be charged is an


offense against her laws, the person accused


alleges that it is an act done under the
authority and laws of the United States.
1t is to try this question and to decide be-


tween the State and the officer of the United


States for an act done while in discharge


of his duty that the case is removed.
The question whether or not it is
an offense against tho laws of a
State must be subordinated to the


more important question whether or not it


was an act done under color of the authority


and law of the United States, and whenever


this question is involved Congress has au-


thorized the defendant to remove the case


into the United States Circuit Court for
, trial, in order that it may be there deter


mined whether or not under the laws of the


United States, he was justified in perform


ing the act with which he is charged by the
i. State. In exercising this power, and in
passing the law which it is now sought to
repeal, Congress acted within the scope of


the Constitution, which vests the judicial


power of the United States in one Su-


"preme Court and in such inferior courts as
0 Congress may from time to time ordain
f "and establish" and which extends this


power to all cases in law or equity aris-
) "ing under the Constitution and the laws
e I" of the United States"


4 The right of the Federal Government to
5 intervene in behalf of persons acting under
/ color of its authority and its laws by re-
= moving from the State courts to its own
f courts all cases, civil or criminal, against
i such persons for acts done while discharging
their duties has from the foundation of the
I Government, been recognized as asubstantial
| part of the national prerogatiye, and in theiI
y attempt to deprive the National Government
of this right the Democrats in Congress are
l seeking to take away from the Government
| powers which were never before denied Il
= it, even by the Democratic party. For over
d sixty years Congress has asserted and main,
t tanned this right by legislative enactments
: The first legislation by Congress in this con
: nection was in 1915, during the war Will
h Great Britain. The foreign policy Of tn,
$ Government during that war was exceed
n ingly injurious to the commercial interests
: of the New England States, and oonse
Y quently the various acts of Congress restrict
e ing their commerce were bitterly opposed ant
y frequently violated in consequence Of whicl
Il Congress found it necessary to pass thu
e "non-intercourse act" the eighth section o
g which provided for the removal from the