Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/63

 UNITED STATES ,f. OONWAT. 51 �already escaped from his control- The act of the defendants vas necessarily an obstruction and hindrance of the marshal in the performance of the duty in which he was then en- gagea, namely, the duty to arrest and take into custody the person who, in his presence, had attempted to'vote underciT'-; cunjstances justifying the beliipf that he was not entitled to vote. The question whether the drawing of a pistol by the marshal was necessary to' enable the marshal to protect his custodyof the prisoner had no materiality. The material question was whether the marshal, while engaged as he was in maintaining his custody of Shafer, had been obstructed and hindered by the defendants in the disoharge of that duty. So, also, the question whether Shafer had, in fact, the right to vote was immaterial, when it was shown that the circum- stances under which Shafer attempted to vote were sufficient to justify the belief that he had no such right: the dutyof the marshal to arrest him was made to appear. �It bas been further contended that the arrest of the mar- shal, under the circumstances.-was no dffence, because the laws of the state required the defendants, being policemen, to arrest any person believed to be committing a breach of the peace, and equally made it their duty to remove the prisoner to a police station. But the law of the United States (section 5522) made it the duty of the defendants, under the circumstances, not tp obstruct or hinder the mar- shal in an, effort to maintain the custody, of a prisoner duly arrested by him. This duty, created. by this law of the United States, was not affected by any provision of the laws of the state. The statute of the United States says: "Whether withpry?ithout any authority, power, or process from any state or munieipality;" and indicates;, as clearly as language can, the intention pf tl?e legislative power to be that no authority derived from a law of the state should furnish excuse or justification for an obstruction of a marshal in the performance of a duty required of him by law. Upon the occasion in question this statute of the United States was the paramount law, binding upon policemen and ail other persons. io this law the defendants owed obedience, anv ��� �