Burlington free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1827-1865, 1839-04-19

'''0u !" thc gencr1i government In two
ways: First from the fact that il is an or.
gahized government, having power TO enact
general laws, and hence if the surrender of
leions be necessary for any general purposes
entrusted TO CONGRESS-, they may enact law
Tor that purpose, and again, Congress arc
authorized to enact laws for the general wei.
Iarc' and the sure nder Of felons be condu.
| GIVE 70 that end, they may ordain it and pre-
scribe the mode. THIS view answers one Of
me arguments of the gentleman before allu.
ued 10, and shows how far the United States
should be responsible, not for the acts of the
Governors, but for the acts of their own
agents. But IT this view be correct, the pow.
or Is not exclusive, but concurrent in tho
state, for the states are also organized ooy.
ernments, and therefore have the same pow
et' and not only so, but they are also autho.
rlsed TO enact laws for the general welfare:
so that on the most liberal and rational mode
OF considering the subject the power must
reside IN both governments, as inciden, 10 the
sovereignty of each, and necessary 10 the full
ana perfect execution Of the powers indispu.
'ably granted to each.
A variety Of cases have been decided BY
the supreme Court Of the United States, ex-
p'anatory OF the powers Of the States. and
showing concurrent power with the United
States. In the case Of Houston W.. Moore,
10Th Wheaton0 it was held that "the powers
granted by the constitution 10 congress are
never exclusive of similar powers existing
" IN the states, unless when the constitution
" mas expressly in terms given an exclusive
power TO congress. or the exercise of a like
power Is prohibited 10 the states, or there is
"a direct repugnancy or incompatability in
" The exercise oil it by the states" This doc.
trlne was cited and enforced in the case Of
The City of Ncw.York VS.. Min, IL Peters.l
I'm all other cases not falling within the
classes alreadymcn;ioned, the States retain
concurrent authority with Congress. not
"only upon the spirit Of the constitution, but
upon the soundest principles of reasoning"
(see above cases.) Even the grant Of an
exclusive power to congress may be exercised
ny The states until congress act upon it, as
in the bankruptcy cases, TO- Wheat. 1861
1t has been repeatedly held that power
granted to Congress for one purpose, may
still be exercised by the States for another,
although The means used in their execution may
sometimes approach ench other so nearly as to
be conf1unded. IL. Peters, 100, 1877, lag.
1t is only when there is q collision between
the laws of the Union and the laws Of tho
o'utSss tuuI tuC SlulC law IIluSt IcCeue. 0uG
in this case there can be no collision, as con.
gress has not legslatcd.
In the case Of the City Of New York ".
Min. 10 which have before alluded, deci.
ded in 1897, II. Peters,, the powers of the
States and Of the United States under tho
constitution were examined and discussed
with great ability. The point there ruled
seems to be decisive Of the one under exam.
lnatIon. 1t established this broad proposition,
that the States have the constitutional pow.
er OF forbidding the entry of all persons they
consider dangerous 10 the community. But
this is no new doctrine, and is conformable
to the doctrines of national law. Vauel.
Big. CT S. "a, establishes the doctrine that
The sovereign may (orbid the entry Of his isr,i.
tory, either in general 10 erery stranger, or in
particular case, as 10 certain persons. Ifhe
may forbid the entry, I0riiori. he may re-.
move them. This is part of the power Of
internal protection. it is 4 regulation Of police
as Is the punishment Of crime which is exclu.
sively with the state. H. Pet, 1921 twas
said by Judge Tighman with great force and
proriety-Every nation has an undoubied
right 10 surrenderIUg irom other states.
No man has right to sag, oiU farce mv.
SELF into your territory and you shall pro
teCt me.
There is a class Of men, who, entertaining
the opinion that the power of surrendcr,nr
will be more safe with the general govern.
ment than with the states. reason rather from
their wishes than from any accurate know.
ledge OF the subject. To all such, aud to ali
who contend that the power is exclusively
with the general government, we have a right
to say, point out the section that grant. the
power. The attempt will show that the suppo.
sItIon is not well founded.
Again il is said, that lift is not vested in the
United States it ought to be. but beg leave
10 differ. For all general purposes ufln,ernal
it is far better that it should re-.
main in the states. From the peculiar natu,s
IF the duty. wherever there is cali for lis
performance. there is a necessity that il
should be done without any delay and
without exciting public attention, least
he object to be attained should be de.
Gated. The necessity of resorting in all
,ases to the President even from The extreme
points of the Union, would DO intolerabe in
Practice. 1t is not an extreme case TO sun.
lose that ono Of our friends may BIO robbed
N the praires of ST. Johns and murdered.
nd the wretch appear in the streets of Bur.
ington with the spoil. Shall we resort 10
he Governor of our own state, who alone is
harged with the duty Of internal protection,
nd when the state only can punish such
fences, for a warrant. or wait tho slow
rogress of an application to the President.
give the gentleman time 10 drive his coach TO
'oxas' The protection that this state owes
, all within its jurisdiction can only be
erfccty obtained by concedng tho power of
irrendering fugitive fclons to the Governor
{ the state.
The state is the depository Of all
lat most intimately concerns US,
lie guardian of our rights the pro-
,ctor of our invaluable blessings
nd should have the first place in
lr affections. 1t was never the
'tention in the grant of powers to
ongress to create an antagonist