Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/57

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
This page needs to be proofread.


UNITÈd' S^itlië »J KiNDBBD. US �mails, ànd empower its cburtô to ônforce those îawS'.^ So^it inay establish a customs system, an internai revenueisystem, a judiciary'Bystein, and dô ôther things especially authorized by the national constitution; ahd it may pass ail laws neces- sary and prôper for ca,rrying into exécution the spécifie pow- ers grantfed by that instrument. The peculiarity of onr fédéral government, distinguishing it from ail other confed- eracies previously existing, and from the corifederaoy of 1780 to 1789, -which existed under the old articles' of confédération, is that it is eïapowered to act upon individnals in the states in thé exercise of the powers that hâve been adverted to, and is not limited in its powers to demands upon the constituent states in their corporate càpacity.' Its laws affeet individu- aïs, its authority Controls individûals, its officers' deal with individua,ls, its courts havé côgnizaiice of individûals, and, as the law is net a respecter ai persons, ifany îndividual ■wilfully and ijorruptly violâtes à law bf 'Gongress it -willàn igëneral not ' avail' him to plead that he is exempt from àcè'ouhtabilïty by reàson'of hfe'being 'an ôfficër of a fltate, and 'dîâ the act ■•wlth^ which hé ia clhargedaa an officer of the �'state.' ' ;;-.-' ;,;. ::,..,.;;,. �It is vèry true', as hàs been dèoided in ■ the cases cited.' at Wr'by deïeûdaht'tfti6tih8ël,thiat state officers are, ab^euch, exerhpt from thé operàtion'k)f certain laws of the tlniied States^ A state of&cer's sàîâry; for instance, cftrktot he taxed by thè United States, béoatlsô the power.tô tâx would carry the power 'to destroy, an'd it is inconipatible with thecorai^ty vrhich should subsist betw^én the f ederar govetnment ' and those of the states that any général law of eongress taxing salaries should be extended to thé salaries of state officers. See CoUector v. Day, 11 Wall. 125. So a state offiôer, ap- pointed under state laws, responsible to state courts, and charged with duties and service to the state, is not in gênerai liable to process from United States courts requiring him to perform positire duties imposed by laws of eongress. See Kenlucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 107. �But I am sure that thèse and like cases which hâve been deeided, and were cited by defendant's counsel, none of them ����