Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1835-08-18

authority TO confer Judicial upon tribunals
or oicers and thus render them auxiliary Federal
tribunals; that the government of the United States is
WAN respect TO its criminal law foreign to the govern
mcnt OF Frgnia that ono foreign ca rno, md
VIII not aid in the execution Of the penal laws of another
That tie State Courts cannot be made and should moi
consent, act Subordinate part to Tho Courts az The
u States IN executing the laws Con sresstlat Con
gross cannot devolvs upon State officers the execution
oi ITS laws that such Officers cannot lawfully execute
snch authority ii attempted be conferred, aud thu,
The petitioner has been subjected mode measure
OF punishment not provided far authorized by the
laws oil the United Siates- L ndrr the influence of
.hesr principles upon the actual state OF facts before
the Court in this il il con,endrd that the detention
o the petitioner by the keeper of the State Pentenary
without awnl authority, and hc is entitled be dis
charged.
Thinking, as do, that this is the place for the dis
cnssion OF merely political topics and that this fur
n;shes no III occasion for ton either of the
principles or practices ofthc government of the States
shall carefully abstain from attempting discussion of
any OF those conrovcrcd questions which have bee in
duged in at the Barr of deep and eonul 10
Us all, in political point of view however variant
In relation to them cur opinions may be- and whose
Importance is increasing with the of each
successive yearso far as such is practicable
consistently with proper examination of the legal ques
tons which involved in this case, and which must
decide The principal question fer decision this Is
Tue petitioner detained III custody without lawful auho.
tity some preliminary questions. however, pre-
scented, which must be disposed OF. BY the record,
WHICH is made part of the return, it appears that
LACK was indicted, tried and convicted, in the Circuit
Court OF the U. States for the Fifth Circuit and Eastern
District OF Virginia. for robbing the mail of the L. States
"a misdemeanor, committed iii violation of Act of
the Congress of the u. Stacs-and sentenced by the
Court, 10 be imprisoned ind krt hard iaLor for the
term Of ten gen-s he Acts OF Compress defining Tho
offence, regulating and providing its punishment and
under which lie has been convicted, the acts
ating the Court aud prescribing its iurisdicon have
been made in execution of acknowledged powers of the
Government, and therefore made in pursuance of
the Constitution Although it may be true that in some
respects, IN which the relations between the Govern
ment OF the u States aud of the may come in re-
view, they ought TO be considered foreign Govern
ments yet 1t not less true that the Constitution of
the u States, and the laws in pursuance thereof
arc the supreme law of the land From this principle
another and very different relation results in which they
cannot be considered as foreign Governments, in the
sense in which that term is ordinarily used By wri.
tiers international law While the State Court is at all
Tunes bound by The most sacred duty enforce the laws
ana TO guard the rights OF the Sovereign from whom il
derives its existence far these con6dcd its
jurisdiction; yet 1T must feel equally the obligation I'M
posed upon 1t, by the Constitution of the u States to
do no by which the execution the laws of Congress-
made in pursuance thereof, shall be impedcd: not
that n State Court is be vested with any
portion of the Judicial power of the United States
or can lawfully exercise any such power; but the
constitutional laws OF Congress the force of a
thority and with them obligation obedie nee
Inc governments are and independent of each
other, neither possessing the right exercise the pow
eis OF The other but the people being subject to both are
bound to yield obedience TO the constitutional lava of
both; and State Court sitting administer the laws OF
s own State bound udcally 10 know the laws of the
States la this is found the difference betwce laws of
a government merely foreign, and the laws of the U
States In the one case the law be proved in the
other is Judicay known. In questions private rght
arising from contracts made foreign State the Court
would permit the foreign law TO be proved aa fact o.
sentially entering into and constituting part of the
contract and this would not be exercising the iudcial
power oc each foreign State but adminster1r and
c£ing the law of its State, in securing 10
individuals rights derived from contract To exercise
judicial power, Is to acby the command and under the
authority "i Sovereign. Indeed the judicial power it.
sell Is an essential part the sovereign power Ola State
and as penal laws the sanctions which Sovereign
has provided against violations of its commands they
say, by itself Therefore, the penal laws OF FOREIGN
State cannot be enforced imprisonment under or y
virtue oil lhe, (exccPtso far provision has been made
by law, Tor cases OF lngves from Justice b. lawful
within the jurisdiction of this State. But with regard TO
the laws OF the u States individual rights derived from
OF arising under them, can be enforced State Court
without the necessity of proving the law-tha being
known JudscIay to the Court And this judicial know
ledge includes the penal laws of the u States This
ing the case whenever penal law Of the u States shall
come incidentally before State Court eny question
arising under it must be decided by the Court under
The laws OF the State, with reference its rights and
duties rs member ofthc u States; and if the question
be one Of imprisonment, the Court must consider
l" use the language of the General Court of Vrgaia
" ~ persons a,cfay restrained II thar liberty aco s,e
confined an obedience 70 the constitutional oicS Of the a.
States TO apply these principles the case before me
the Government of the U. States though limited with
respect TO its powers sovereign with regard TO the
powers granted to it, The prisoner has been tried and
convicted nnder law made in execution of power
eTrcd by the Constitution, and sentenced be impr-
soed ny Cour established according to the acquisitions
OF the Constitution, vested with power the
law and therefore competent whose judgments this
Court possesses power of revision Therefore can
not say that he is imprisoned without lawful authority
but IN tins view OF the subject, | bound 10 decide
that he lawfully restrained of his liberty But has
been commended by the Counsel for petitioner that the
laws OF the u. s. do authorize his confinement n the
fenitenary; that they contained any such
would be an encroachmcnt upon the powers reserved
TO the States and far that CONGRESS
cannot deyolve upon State officers the execution of
the penal laws of the United States that State officers
cdhnot Iawiuy execute such power if attempted to
conferred; and that although tie Marshal has authority
TO execute the sentence of the Court the imprsonncnt
III the State PcncniaTy u.s. in either view OF the subject
witou; lawful authority The Act of Congress- undcr
which the prisoner indicted, pro vides the punil-
incnt for the offence of which lie has been convicted
imprisonment ut hard labor. The 18th section OF the
Act OF Congress, passed March 5, Ices cfIacts rhat
where any criminal convicted Of any offence against the
U states, shall be- sentenced To- imprisonment con-
ncment to hard labor, it slmli be lawful for the Court
10 order the same to be executed in State prison or
fcnttntiery tie use OF which may be- allowed grant
ca by TIC Legislature Of the State Tor such purposes -
On tins part Of the argument the counsel who appear
General Assembly, which enLcls THAT it shall be the
duty OF the keeper of the Jail every county or corpo
ration within This Commonwealth receive into his ctls
toby any prisoner prisoners who bc from time To
t;'c committed ~ his charge under the authority of The
u States ana To safe kcep every such prisoner or r-
sone.s, according 10 the prcccpt Of commit
cnl, until he shah be discharged By due course Of the
lawson the Cnited states, containing grant or al.
iOWance Ot tie use OF The Pcncntary for such mr.
pose. The final sentence OF conviction sState
tribunal, over wch this Court haS ursGic by writ
OF croE cannot be reviewed summary way upon a-
beas corpus The ut conviction IN ts case can.
not he reye wed by This Court, any way. And IL
roncons, relief must be sought elsewhere. The Cnprt
which pronounced the snence has given no oie. for lis
extension IN the state Pcncntary 1t would appear then,