United States, it would oertainly stir up a dust ; wiiidi, I told
L, we could not help.
As to the Maryland case, involving an attempt by a State Court to replevy goods whidb had been seized by Federal officers for violation of the custom laws, Wirt presented his views in an official opinion as Attorney-General, in which he advised that "through respect to the authority of the State Court of Maryland, a motion be made, on the return of the writ of replevin, to quash it — as these goods are in possession of the Court of the United States and in regular course of adjudication* It is not conceivable that a Court of the State of Maryland would under these circumstance permit its process to be abused, for the purpose of rais- ing an unconstitutional conflict with the authority of another tribunal which is in the previous possession of the subject. The collector is bound by his duty to the Court of the UAited States, whose officer he is qiuHid hoCf to keep the property safe to meet the final sentence of that Court. He could not, therefore, open it to the service of the writ of replevin without a vio- lation of his duty. And no mode occurs of getting rid of the embarrassment produced by that writ, which is so effectual, and at the same time, so respectful to the State authorities, as that which I have had the honor to suggest. " ^
These two episodes well illustrate the anxiety which prevailed over the steadily increasing conflicts between Federal and State authority.
^ Opinion off Wirt» March 22, 1B19, t€th Cong,, 2d 8e$$., Hotue Doe. No. 188. IW. Thii opinion ii not published in the official Ops. AUys.'Omi^ I.
