The Massachusetts spy, and Worcester County advertiser. [volume] ([Worcester, Mass.]) 1825-1831, 1831-01-19
WORCESTER:
WEDNESDAY. JAN. 10. 1881.

condemnng the spirit of opposition which is
the Supreme Court of the United States We
look upon that Judiciary as the palladium OF
our liberties. as the protector equally of the
rights Of the National Government and those OF
the several States and of the individual citizens.
and can see no justification or excuse for the
course which has recently been pursued by
Georgia. Let us bring the case home and see
how it will apply. Suppose, for instance, that
the State of Massachusetts should set up claim
TO jurisdiction over New Hampshire, under the
Pretcnce that it was included within the origin
al limits of this State. An act is passed ex-
tending the laws of this State over New Hamp.
shire. Under the authority of this act, an arm.
ed force enters that State and seizes person
charged with the commission of crime, which,
by the laws of that State, is punishable by i'm
prisonment, but which is here punishable with
death. The culprit is brought to Worcester,
tried, convicted, and sentenced TO be executed
The jurisdiction of our Court is denied And
is there no tribunal where that questi can be
tried Believing there is, the defendant pro-
cures a writ of error, TO remove the case to the
Supreme Court of the United States, that the
question of jurisdiction may be settled Is not
Massachusetts consttutionally bound to obey
the summons' Who can doubt it? And if
she does not, but causes the execution to take
place, it is murder, and those by whose ugen-
cy it is done, are murdercrs.
! Yet the case of Tassels is a much stronger
one than we have here supposed. There the
Jurisdiction is denied on the ground that the
! right of sovereignty was guaranteed to the
Cherokees by treaty stipulations. And the
Constitution gives express jurisdiction to the
Supreme Court in all cases where questions
arising under the provisions of treaties are in.
volved Yet the rulers of Georgia have seen
fit to disregard the writ, and assume the fearful
responsibility of putting Tassels to death. For
this, they may not, perhaps, be held accounta-
BILE to any earthly tribunal, yet there is higher
one, to which they must account, where they
and their victim will stand on equal ground
and where strict and impartial justice will in
evtably be done.
Two other cases have happened, within our
recollection, in which States have come in col
lision with the Supreme Court One was the
great lottery case of Virginia VS.. Cohen, on
appeal from the State Court, in which the ju-
risdiction of the Supreme Court was denied by
Virginia. She, however, concluded TO appear
by counsel, and answer to the case. After
hearing the parties, the judgment of the Vir-
ginia Court was affirmed. The other was the
celebrated OlmStead case in Pennsylvania, of
for the following brief account:
Olmstead and others, during the revolution
AIRY war, took a British vessel, on board of
which they were prisoners. The vessel was
re-capturcd by brig belonging TO the State
Of Pennsylvania The Court of Admiralty
of that State decreed three-fourths of the
prize money to tho State, and one fourth to
Olmstead and his associates. Olmstead appeal
ed from this decision to the Court of appeals,
established by the confederation. That court
reversed the decision of the Pennsylvania Court,
and dereed that the money should be paid to
the first captors. The money, in the shape of
certificates, was placed in the hands of David
Rittenhouse, Treasurer of the State of Penn
sylVdnia, ana, a1ter MS death came into the
hands of his daughters as his heirs. There
the money was in sort of allegiance, till the
year 1903, when Olmstead obtained from the
Federal Court ofthe United States, a Judgment
for the amount, against the heirs of Rittenhouse
The Legislature of Pennsylvania, by resolu-
tons, ordered that the money should be paid
into the State Treasury, or that suit should
be instituted against the heirs; and they fur
ther directed that the Governor should protect
and defend the heirs from any process issued
from the United States Courts. The process
was issued, and the Governor gave orders to
Gen. Michael Bright, General Of Brigade Of
militia, to call out his brigade and resist, there.
WITH the process. The militia men were, ac-
cordingly, put under arms, and actually invest
ed the house and lands of the heirs of Ritten.
house. The process was, nevertheless, served,
and the State of Pennsylvania, instead of wag-
ing war against the Federal Government, the
whole power of which could, and would have
been exerted in support of the process, backed
out and paid the money. General Bright WINS
prosecuted for resisting the mandate Of the
Federal Court This affair had thus, we'll nigh
involved the country in civil war. single
step further, on the part of the General or of
those under whose orders he acted, would
have led to this deplorable result