Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-05-12
From the Baltimore American.
MIR. BERRIEN'S BILL.


Our readers no doubt observed in the report
ofthe Senate's proceeding published yesterday,
that Mr.. BERRIEN, from the Judiciary Commit
tee, addressed the Senate in behalf of a bill re-
ported by him, the object Of which is to OK
tend the writ of Habeas Corpus i'll certain
cases. At present this writ under the iursdic-
ton of the Federal Courts applies only when
party is imprisoned by the authority of the
United States, or imprisoned to be tried in
court of the United States. The design of the
new bill Is 10 authorize the extension of the
writ to all cases arising under the laws of the
United States, and to all arising from tire aties
between the United States and foreign govern
ments.
The propriety of this enactment is so evil
dent as to require enforcement of argument
tits sustained by the planest analogies-by
the simplest considerations of reason and con-
sistency. The jurisdiction here claimed is
merely commensurate with the law-making
power which exists already, and which no
one disputes. 1t is not a new grant that is
asked for.-Congress would have no authori-
ty to give that. All that the bill requires is
that the jurisdiction of the Federal courts shall
extend pari paSSu with the laws enacted by
the Federal Government.
1t is indispensable to the completeness of a
maintained Otherwise the strangestanomalies
must continually arise, together with most
gross absurdites. How can it be held that a
government has power TO make laws and yet
nopower to authorize its tribunals to enforce
them Can one government be dependent OH
another government for the execution of its
laws? Such palpaDle incongruities cannot be
in any well ordered system.
The laws of the United States and the trea-
ties made under them are of binding force in
all parts Of the Union alike. A question aris-
ing from any Of these, concerns the whole
Union. II cannot be maintained, then, that a
single State has the right of decision in such
cases, or that the General Government is with
out the power of interference.
The Mcleod case is exactly in point here,
and 1t was this case, no doubt, which suggest
ed the necessity of the proposed enactment.
When the difficulty on that event occurred, it
was found to the surprise of almost every one,
and to the utter establishment of British civil
ms, that no provision existed by which the
General Government could take direct cogniz-
ance OF the case, although the question was
one IN which The whole Union was interested
as question OF peace or war A local Court
III ,ne oiate oil New Y ork, deriving its existence
and process from the laws of that State. sat in
the place of the supreme tribunal or the land
and the rest OF the Union, the General Govern,
ment in all its departments, Executive. Jeg;s-
lature and Judicial, waited upon its decision
In anxious suspense! The constitution stood
IN allegiance before the authorities of single
State.
Such an occurrence as that was not more
dangerous IN its possible results than il was
aosured In respect to the principles upon
which 1t proceeded. We make our respectful
Acknowledgements to Mr.. BERRIEN for this
endeavor OF his to give consistency to our sys-
tenn. we cannot doubt Of its success If the
General Government has power to make laws
under the constitution, without needing the as
sent Of State Legislatures, it must of necessity
have the power also Of authorising its own
courts to take cognizance of cases arising nm
DER them without needing to depend on the ac-
ton Of State tribunals.