Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1817-05-02

TTaTTIT sTT = = :
placed uudcr lis command, government
and control exclusively. From being the
militia AMI officers OF the state, they are
immediately converted, by such United
States cell and state order, into the mill
tia and n:iicers Of the nation. The state
whence they have been 80 taken, so abso-
lgtsiv ceases TO have any control over
them. thatis canao, organize a court mar
iiai fresa among them, or IN any manaer
invest court with power to take cogni-
z8nce ofanv offence which y. m!ii,ialOan
cr nlhc may commit as such, while III
thea,tunl service OF the United Sta:es.-
'ELix Wight to cal, mi.i;ia state officer in
10 the service OF the Uhiied States, does
so cifactua,Iv CONVEX; him, while engaged
ia sab service, into an officer of the ma
rom, that he is not bound 10 Two supe-
rings: for his allegiance 20 the one is
thrown OF. or suspended during lis being
p.a cd under tie command, and an obh-
CATION 10 obey another soycreignty-
hleales case Houston vs.. Dicks, al. at
lancaster, Penn. 10 Feb. 1917, per J.
Franklin.
Sut in tie Ease now before us, the Off
cial duty of This Justice 10 the state is
supposed to continue, and an attempt is
made to compel him 10 ACT rs auxiliary to
an United States officer, Of 4 similar cha
racter and superior grade. To compel
this justice to receive, in his official cha
racter, an Investment of judicial authori-
" from the United States, 10 be used in
AID Of and as an auxiliary Of their power.
in the one case, the state militia officer is
callci Ger, and concerted into an officer Of
the United States; in the other, the ius-
tice is ATTEMPTED TO be used or called on
as ~, aid or oNrsGasv. Put tie right TO
call for state militia officer, for The pur~
pose ofconveriing him into II national Of
iicer, is distinct and specific; on the o.
iher hand, there is no express right given
to use an officer of state as an auxiliary: :
andye the one is no less important in lis
nature and consequences than the other.
The inference, therefore, is irresistible.
that state judicial officer can, in no in
stance, be called on 10 act as an ausiIa,y
to the powers of the u. States
Among The various principles, arising
Ontof our pecuiinr and estimable form
of government, there is, perhaps, no one
more obvious or more valuable than the
principle of responsibility; whatevertends
IL cnte' BILE this great principle should he
regarded with the most wahetu! jealousy
but whatever destroysit, we should all
unite III expeling, as the implacable ere
nv of all our political Institutions. All
the officers Of the United States, employ
ed in defending their rights, or in carry
insinto execution their laws. are appoint
ed by, them, compensated bv them, re-
movable by them, responsible directly or
indirectly 10 them. and punishable hv
them for their official misconduct. With
regard 10 all public functionaries so en-
ploVed, 1t may he correctly said, that the
L. States can create or can destroy-can
reward or punish.
But the u. States are allowed TO use
the o'accrs Of any other independent So
vereigpiy than their own, for the purpose
otmaintainng their rights, or of eXecu-
ting Their iSWs, this principle of response
billy IS certainly very much impaired, If
nottotally destroyed. II is not pretend
cd, that state Iadge can he inpeached
forNfsiclal miSbehayiour of any kind when
= acting in the name and Jsaalf Of the u.
States. Nor can any state officer be re-
moved from his oijce by any superior au-
fhorilv OF the u. States. Even then, if il
should be admitted that such officer NAV
be restrained from misconduct by an acli-
on at taw. iii which he NAV be treated as
Wrong-dOer yet he is absolutely ire
spousible 10 that superior power under
whose authority and lin whose name he
gets. And 1T is equally obvious, that for
similar reasons, he cannot be made 10 re-
spond to the superior powers OF Tie state
hlletf Nn'cii ne mas heen commissioned :.
because il is clear that he can only be
maze to answer 10 She state superiors for
tae faithful discharge of the trust which
they have committed to his keeDirr. and
not tor,he performance of those duties
winch any other sovereignty has ASSIGN
cd TO h'm. 1t IS evident, therefore, that
THIS great aud valuable principle of the
constitution ofthe union, judiciaf respo,wi-
bhty, would he &C vpleieiy prostrated by
allowing of this mode of comforting Judi
cal powers on state officers, aed cnnse-
qrenily it must, for this reason, also be
deemed altogether invalid
The first section oftiie 3d article of the
constitution of the u. States declares,
that " the judges, both of the supreme
and inferior courts, shall hold their Off
ces dHringgood behaviour; and shall, II
stated times, receive Cor their services a
compensation which shall not be dimin-
ished during their continuance in Office"
Whether ibis he the best tenure OF iudici.
a. Office or not. Is, asregards the present
enquiry, OF no importance. II is enough.
sllai this bc admitted to be fbe general
constitutional tenure by which All tile
Judges oftle United States shall hold
flieir offices. But IL the jndiciai poweroi
the union can be committed TO the judicial
functionaries ofihc states, then ilosewlo
act rs jndges of the union would hold
their offices by all the variety of judicial
tcnures, during sood behaviour. rcmova
Bile byconviciinh IN court Of law. bv
n1drees nj Inv i'm "a, 900