Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-12-04

hNNv1r EraH atfI FnraNffge > Nod - l= worthy /
Of aisarr,,io, ,bio, I,n go, 81 Isf1 ,s wajl
ne liz ,i,to Of ,bo Rayi.,I S,,tn,as' AIMS ~
rrobiLi,inr Tho evna,tsIion as we'll as the i'm
..,,,i.a - - AID ,L,, In, do 80, or
,o,- a ~ a.'I 'r,as Tm Al, "c Is,o
80. d. pa.;..J = 49,. IL ,L,, 80,
nor5', bors !, ,Lis &c. ~ sI,yo oxcan;t
a. ,,,h,-;.,l L, .ti, T,i.l, .rsli he froo
-. IN 'a,y ,~ho,Lo. , . ,tis
.,ro "u, , III ;a,a ~. Co. j., oan-
,or nat nTo,ieaJ h, ,Lo pa,ig,d SI,,a,cs
H., iiI 49,. ,t.N,L - ,Io. ~. I,a. Looo,,e
:as, c,c,a r-,, .,L ,rL",bcr tbis rroco,Jinr
brafcgrc tho fI,,ycr il mot N,rsf,rd. in anerl',
n nrocrsgirT ~ c,-ry a., Gsa ci,,qrn inf, hon.
dec. pYi I do NOT consider that poi,l. a- il
w5s no, r-i.iJ barn,c me- in ,b" ,rru1oent.
was not discussed. and is rot necessary to
the decision Of the question before me.
Tive broad opesti5n discussed. and which
I an, called unop to decide, is, whether our
Sa,e LEGISLATURE have authority to pass this
law.
The POINT has never. as fir as | can learn,
hecn decided, or even a.iiated in our State.
and it is presented 10 me not only as q new
one. but, in the imposing form Of requiring
from me a decision that Il law Of our State is
repurnaut 10 the constitution Of the United
States. and therefore void. Fully aware Of
the dinidence with which courts should al
ways entertain such questions, | approach
this with all the caution becoming the grav-
ity of the case. vet with a lively sense of
what is due TO personal liberty and the fra
tcrnal relations existing gmong the members
oil the Union.
As have already mentioned, tie statute
under consideration was first enacted in 1917,
and was subsequently re-enacted aud wentin-
to effect as part Of the revised statutes, in
1890. In 1884. the Supreme Court of this
this State. in Jack as. Martin, II Ncnd, 81.
held that the law Of CONGRESS, in relation to
fugitive slaves, WAS supreme and paramount
from nccessiiy-tiat SO far as the States are
concerned. the power, when thus exercised.
is exhausted, and though the States might
have desired a different legislation on the
subject, they cannot amend. qualify, or in
any manner alter il-that though the act of
the State might nat be in direct repugnancc
TO the Legislation Of Congress. it does not fol-
low that it ia not in lcrdl eject: that if they
correspond in every respect. then the latter is
idle and imperative; i. they differ, they must,
in the nature Of things, oppose each other SO
far as they do differ; t|uta fair Interpretation
Of the terms in when the provision ct the
Constitution is expressed, prohibits the States
from lcgislatiug upon the question INVOLVING
''1 Wv 'i 90 'l-tt q aus Sl''-Nn va aAfN'S anu
that while the law Of Congress, thus passed
exists, the power Of the Suites is suspended
and, for the time, is as imperative as if it ha'
neyer-existed,
The case OF Jack rs. Martin, was CARRIE
to our Court for the correction OF errors, an
the Judgment OF the Supreme Court was at
frued. Though the reasons given for TIA
decision in the Court OF last Resort, as re
ported in II Wendell j07, differ from thos
given in the Court below, the positions c
the Supreme Court, as have extracted them
were IN no respect disturbed but have eve
since remained and are now the law OF tn
land, governing the Courts and citizens q
this State.
In 1912, the Supreme Court &C the Unite,
States in prirg A.. Pennsylvania lG, Peter
$50, had the same question before them. ]