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

UNITed' S^itlië »J KiNDBBD. US �mails, ànd empower its cburtô to ônforce those iawS'.^ 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 execution the specifie pow- ers grantfed by that instrument. The peculiarity of onr federal 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 confederation, is that it is eiapowered to act upon individnals in the states in the exercise of the powers that have been adverted to, and is not limited in its powers to demands upon the constituent states in their corporate càpacity.' Its laws affeet individu- ais, its authority Controls individûals, its officers' deal with individua,ls, its courts have côgnizaiice of individûals, and, as the law is net a respecter ai persons, ifany individual ■wilfully and ijorruptly violates à law bf 'Gongress it -willàn igëneral not ' avail' him to plead that he is exempt from àce'ouhtability by reàson'of hfe'being 'an ôfficër of a fltate, and 'dia the act ■•wlth^ which he ia clhargedaa an officer of the �'state.' ' ;;-.-' ;,;. ::,..,.;;,. �It is very true', as hàs been deoided in ■ the cases cited.' at Wr'by deieûdaht'tfti6tih8ël,thiat state officers are, ab^euch, exerhpt from the operàtion'k)f certain laws of the tlniied States^ A state of&cer's sàiary; for instance, cftrktot he taxed by the United States, beoatlsô the power.tô tax would carry the power 'to destroy, an'd it is inconipatible with thecorai^ty vrhich should subsist betw^en the f ederar govetnment ' and those of the states that any general law of eongress taxing salaries should be extended to the 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 general 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 these and like cases which have been deeided, and were cited by defendant's counsel, none of them ����