Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1833-11-26

Satel Yet that surrenjerDot Of Jurisdiction. not
Of legislation merely. bu, OF soil BY the OF her
District OF Columbia, she expressly withheld all right OF
property in the soil, grning only the power legslae
IT, lie referred TO the act Of Cession, Rev. Co. IL
She right to Congress, thus standing the place
oil legislature to transcend ia her for the
district. the limits which they might Iegsate.
Mr. ROBERTSON enquhed o the court. whether argu-
mrnt would be expected from him. to prove The right Of
the ate Judiciary TO examine the legality proc
teore the Federal tribunals, aud by Hsbeas Corpus,
heve IN all cases individuals confined without due au-
tho,ity.
The Count said, that the RICH, to supervise the acts OF
the Federal Courts had been questioned by Mr. RHODES,
he was willing To hear an argumen upon the point.
MIR. ROBERTSON The great value of the Habeas
Corpus Act derived ro, the right gave the State
Judges. or rather the duty it euoned upon thein to en-
qnire INTO the LEGALITY oil the confinement IL made II
their duty. when there probable cause to lieve
person detained in custody 'tcfhOuf idd authority
to grant me w.t. examine Into the cause and dscharee,
admit TO ball. or remand TO custody, the law AMI the
evd should require. The prisoner EMIL al TO his
Liberia ion IN every case when there righ)u
uosiiy to ihpi-on. The wulness Of the deiaier
the precise question which they called upon
eide; AMI would be truly strange, il objection pre-.
GUIDING all enquiry into that question: was allowed al the
Threshold Would he said, that judges should decline
such enquiry upon principle OF coAi'y. and shut their
eyes to the most enormous oppresson upon the SUPPOSE
iiuc would be countenaned by the judge OF this
court. Ii would lead TO INDUSTRIOUS consequence IL
would screen from scrutiny the OF mailman, a do
ar,i, and sacrifice the rights Of the citizen notion Of
judicial courtesy.
1t could not be necessary TO refer to many authorities.
TO show that the power claimed for the State Judicial
ny properly appertaneJ TO IT, lie would call the reco
lection vi the court, the decision OF Judge Parker, the
OF Lauon aud Others reported ia the Enquirer the
nth August 1920. In that case, the legality OF the
mi,nen, under color oil the authority Of the u. S. was
examined the authority derived from act Of Congress
denied, and the prisoners discharged.
Erpdrte Poote's case, ed va. cases,) cited by Mr.
Rhodes SO Tar from denying this power must be under.
stood distinctly, affirm it, The say they will con
slider all restrained Of their liberty who
Ian
or Of the U. Sates;- they will discharge party
when commitment is regularly made, with view TO
ally committed and eognisobie therein The whole case
proves that the Imprisonment must be by tribunal OF
Competent jurisd, ton.
Before be said 10 be competent the extent Of its
powers must be seen and examined Or else there would
be no relief in any where any
should assume power not belonging to it, The usurpaon
oil Tie power would be taken proof Of its wu exist
ence. The great case OF Hunter Martin, 4h hiunf
ls decided by our Supreme Court OF Appeals, clearly
establishes the doctrine cone nded for. The question
before the court whether they could examine into
the consiuiionaliy Of OF Congress. under which
they had been required by the Supreme Court of the u
Saies 10 enter the judgment Of the latter! The Judges
oil the Court OF Appeals unanimously asserted their right
to make the investigation. They unanimously declared
the act in question and the idpms mt of
the Supreme Court of the u. States affirming its const
uionaly OF no binding obligation upon them. The pro-
ceedngs OF the latter court have
cordm non Judce and its mandate disre garded.~ He
said he would refresh his own memory, and possibly
that oil the COURT by reading few brief passages the
opinions oil Judges Brooke and Roane:
Judge Brooke said: " In deciding this first question
recurrence must be had TO the Constitution itself for
though subscribe 10 the doctrine one of the counsel
that TO the that the States have parted with their
power they ought to part with their pde-yeI cannot
as implicitly assent 10 the position that where State Rights
are violated, they only be defended in the
government, IN Congress, by appealing TO the People
The state authorities have been said, with great force
to be the guardians Of the peoples and their rights
The right to resist niractions OF the Federal Constitution,
proceeding from the General Government any
ment thereof has been soemny asserted in Virginia (see
Resolutions in 1899 and result from the nature
OF the two governments"
Judge Roane il possible still more strongly expressed
his opinions 81 have already said, with the Virginia Legs
aiure that the powers Of the Federal Government result
IRON The compact TO which the States parties no
farther valid than they authorized by the grants
enumerated in the compact; and, will add, by the
same authority 'tha in case Of deliberate papabe and
dangerous exercise oil powers not granted by the said
compact the States, who the parties thereto have the
right and are in duty bound arrest the progress the
evil While the States, therefore, In their Legislative
or eUen original character authorized interfere in
cases oil The Papabe nature just MENTIONED the courts OF
the States also authorized 10 check the evil when il
occurs i' The exercise Of their ordinary jurisdiction
The principle settled in the Of Hunter os. Martin
was ldencay that now under discussions that the State
courts may examine not only ie of acts
Of Congress, but also the legality of in the
Federal Courts The notion Of judicial comp lasance was
not thought to justify judicial usurpation Whether the
Circuit Court OF Alexandra fully possessed the power
II had exercised was, therefore, fair and sub.
Ject OF enquiry before this In aiming the acts of
another court, a distinction had bee taken between the
undue exercise oil an acknowledged power, and the
sumption OF power not granted. In the latter case the
proceedings had always been regarded nugatory and
there being no such power in the court OF Alexandria
ha" IN tins instance exercised its process must be disre
garded, and Mr. Pleasans discharged with as little
mony as il it had issued from the of the Kings
Bench i'm England.
Atthe conclusion Of Mr. RoBERTsoN's arguments Mr.
RHODES said, that, as the counsel for Mr. Peasants had
taken wide range, and had presented great vare
ty OF views which he desired reply TO- he would ask
the indulgence OF the court until Monday-to which the
court assented.
MONDAY, Nou. 18Th.
Mr.. RHODES said, that he was politican-Do parti.
zan, at least-and that he in manner tempted by
the example OF the gentlemen The other side 10 e,n.
bark this occasion upon troubled sea of party pol
tics On the contrary, he would decline all reply to the
topics which had been drawn from that source which
he considered as UNIT TO be mngie with the
tons OF constitutional and law involved in the
at bar He could not for his life discover what there was
in this cause 10 require or justify the excitement hic
seemed to have been produced. IL familiar and
every DAY proceeding The spectacle is surely rare
OF court OF justice exerng its compulsory of at
tachnen 10 bring IN reluctant reac DRY witness If
the happened be editor he did perceive that
the liberty OF the press in peril If the court happen
ed TO be Federal Court he did not see that the peculiar
and self constituted guardians Of State Rights feel
themselves called upon to shudder with aarnor did
md hi matter for violent and bitter invecve in the fact
that this witness Of the editorial class was required 10 an
pear before the Grand Jury of the Federal Court OF Alex
aDdria; although il do what by many is wicked.
W supposed to be particularly painful TO that class OF peo
pie, namely TO tell the TRUTH the whole truth and nothing
but the truth. II true, that the Grand Jurits ex.
cesdiDg their duties, might make frivolous and vexaous
acquisitions upon the time and OF our citizens
editors included under the power now asserte-but this
might as well be done under the known and established
laws OF Virginia by the Grand Jures of Accomack or OF
Lee or under the constitutional and established laws of
Congress by the Grand Jures Of the Circuit Courts OF
Maine or Georgia, Ivy the Grand Jury of
The power might be liable 10 abuse The
powers Of this and Of every known or govern
men' were liable to abuse and any power 10 be