Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-15
CANA STATE PROTECT THE LIB
ERTY OF ITS INHABITANTS!

case of an inhabiiant Of Vermont. claimed as a
fugitive slave. is within federal jurisdiction, yet
that the jurisdiction is not ercps're, SO as to pre-
cude the State from applying the writ OF habeas
corpus. Judge Nelson admitted that; and that.
too. was admitted by the Supreme Court of Mas
sachusetts in the case of Simms. IN the third
number last week we argued that the State as
sovereign, has The right to give the privilege Of
trial by jury and an appeal in habeas corpus
that these provisions were incident 10 the conce-
dcd jurisdiction of the State to provide the rene
dy by habeas corpus; and that ongress IS re-
sirjeici by the Constitution from interfering with
the power OF the State over all three points-the
habeas corpus, tri by jury and the right OF APP
pea-in short over all remedies included within
the words 90 due process of law'-so long as the
state limits itself to its own jurisdiction. Take
this for authority
Tho words "that no person shall be deprived Of
life. liberty or properly without due process OF
law" do not apply to the state governments, but
are limitations upon the power granted H. e. 10
the federal governmeni.) IN the instrument ITSELF
--i4h Peters 5s5, 7h Peters -l3 sol, 552
Now the inquiry necessarily arises, W hat IS the
states jurisdiction ia the case oi one ofits inhab-
tan,s who is claimed as slave; We hold that
it is precisely this: TO asccrin.u whether tie
person held in duress is iatgi'iiiy held--'s really
within the jurisdiction Of federal authority n nc
cordance with the Constitution Of tie United
Sslts and the Laws Of Congress? 10 other
word the sole question to be tried is whether
a case has arisen in which the jurisdiction Of
federal authority is exclusive? If such case
has arisen, the person must be reminded to fed
eral authority. II such Is not tie case, the state
Is bound to protect is "nhabiAn,n against a
man stealer and 20 discharge him. In this we
faiiy adopt the doctrine Of Judge Nelson, when
he ys, And when il is shown that the commit
ment or detoiner is under the Constitute II or a
law % the United Suites, or a treaty, the power
OF the state authority is at an end" OF course
oil the arguments about lease under the Con-
sttnion and laws Of Congress about the
exclusive jurisdiction Of ongress and the fedeml
{ ourt-. do not even touch the Vermont law ia
any manner whatever. When ii is conceded
that tle State mag inquire by habeas corpus into
the nrost Of the man, all objections of th.s sort
60 by the board. But these directors apply,
If they have any force at ALL not to the law, but
10 The trient Of the inquiry 10 be mute By State
judg,s under our lac. We have said that in
curry Is, whether the case IS one Of exclusive
federal jurisdiction--a case where the person is
held in accordance with the Constitution and
acts Of ongress. To illustrate by examples Of
another sort a person was charged with crime
in Pennsylvania, and requsiton made upon the
Governor of New York for warrant to deliver
him mp for trial the warrant was granted, when
the person had his writ of habeas corpus from
New fork Judge What the extent Of this
judges inquiry 1t was to see whether the per-
son was, in accordance with the words Of the
Constitution, "churgcd with treason, felony. or
other crime" in Pennsylvania, and had been " de-
handed" of the Governor of Now-York. We
do aot know whether ii was suggested TO the
judge, HAT this was :" u case under the federal
Constitution, and besides that the Pennsyl1a-
MA courts would determine whether a crane had
been "charaed," but if such suggestions were
N do, he deemed it his right anl duty to sltlsly
himself Of that fact, and also oI the fact Of a
prop demand and warrant, before be would re-
mand the man. Or take the case of a person
held by any court on any charge Whatever
can { be doubted that the Judge issuing the ha-
boas corpus may discharge the prisoner if he is
held either withoh ialcfA cause, or without ialo-
.jii aHihOriy9 And would 1t be good answer,
that the court urreslIng the man would Judge
both of ha oil -.
ity Surely, these points may be settled on the
habeas corpus. 1t will not do 10 take any other
doetnnes, until we are prepared to make the priv
ilego Of habeas corpus, just what some judges,
we fear, iroldd make il, the mere shadow Of the
most ancient legal shield Of liberty.
These, however, are not precisely parallel
with ihe case Of an iuhabltsnt of Vermont claim
ed as a slave. The principle and the purpose
are lhe same IN all cases; but this case is pecu-
lar. In the first place il involves the obligation
Of the state TO give up an inhabiiant; the state
being bound to give up the man, ifhe is a. figi-
fire saye-and not bound to deliver him If he is
moi fugitive slave. In the next place it is Pc
ouiar, IN this, that the Constitution itssif defines
iehai Is case oiihn ereiusire federal jurisdiction.
This is not matter for { orgress or federal
judges to define or regulate or NEEDLE with -
They are bound by the Constitution. In a case
IN England, where il was claimed that habeas
corpus could not be prosecuted because the per
sons wen in arrest for breach of the privilege
OF Parliament, Lord Chief Justice Holt held this
language:
The privileges Of the House Of Commons are
vel known, and are founded upon the law of
the land, and are nothing but tie law" 81
shan presume 10 maintain that here is no prvi-
leg broken, for take II for granted that prlyi-
lego Is stated aud settled by the law of England.
an IS not an uncertain and undehnabe thing"
In that case Chief Justice Holt was oyeruled
by d majority Of the Judges, and an appeal tax
en- TO the House Of Lords the House Of COM
mons denied the right of the Lords 10 entertain
the case; the House Of Lords affirmed the right
but before trial, Parliament was dissolved-and
TO TINS day that question IS unsettled in England.
W venture to rely upon one Of the best Chief
Justices England ever had, and 10 say, that the
"clse' IN which Vermont is bound to surrender
her inhabitants to sase catchers, is described bv
the supreme law Of the land, and nothing hut
mat and that the judges Of Vermont ought to
hold that no obligation Is imposed IA anu oihe,