Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/126

 STATE ». POET. 119 �yfhai they did was done under and by right of their said ■office; that it was their duty to seize illicit distilleries and the apparatus used for the unlawful distillation of spirits, and that while attempting to seize Buch distilleries as afore- said, in said collection district and said northern district of Georgia, and having engagea in such attempt to seize said distilleries, under and by authority of the revenue laws of the United States, as such deputy coUectors aforesaid, they were assaulted and fired upon with guns and other deadly "weapons by a number of armed men, and that, in defence of their own lives, they returned the fire of their assailants, •frhich is the alleged murder mentioned in said affidavit and warrant of arrest; and petitioners aver and say that said criminal prosecution was commenced against them in said state court for alleged acts which were done, if done at ail, as offioers appointed under and acting by authority of the internai revenue laws of the United States, and against them ■as officers acting under and by authority of offioers appointed under and acting by authority of the internai revenue laws of the United States, and on account of acts done under color of their said office and under color of the internai revenue laws of the United States, and on account of the right, title, and authority claimed by petitioners under the internai reve- nue laws of the United States." �Upon this petition for removal the case came on for hear- ing before the United States circuit court for the northern •district of Georgia, which was in session. �S. À. Damell, Ass't Dist. Att'y, John L. Hopkins, John S. Bighy and George S. Thomas, for petitioners. �S. B. Spencer, contra. �Woods, C. J. It is conceded that the petitîoh for removal «ontains ail the averments necessary to be made, under sec- tion 643 of the United States Eevised Statutes, for the re- moval of a criminal prosecution from a state to the federal court. �Heretofore the constitutionality of the act under which this Temoval is sought has been vigorously assailed in this court. That question, however, has been definitely settled in favor of ����