Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-01
CANA STATE PROTECT THE LIB
EaTY OF IT'S INHABITANTS?

the supreme Court Of Massachusetts in the
Smms case, and more particularly by the recent
charge Of Judge Nelson ofthc L. $ Sup Court
These opinions also induce a change front to rear
Both admit that State courts may interpose by ha-
bcas corpus in favor Of persons arrested by fed
oral authority, notwithstanding the jurisdiction Of
the federal courts is erclusiUe over the alleged
cause Of action. lnasmuch as Judge Nelson
presdes over this circuit, as well as for the rea
son that his opinion has been published and APP
proved by some Of the Vermont papers, we quote
what he has to cay upon the subject:
by the second section Of the thiTd article Of
the constitution, it is declared that The Judi
cial power shah extend to all cases in law and
equity arising under this constitution, the laws Of
the United States, and treaties made. or which
Ghall be made under their authority
The power. therefore, ID will be seen. 10 exc
rute this act the fugitive slave act) Of Congress
belongs 10 the tribunals and authorities Of the
federal government; and 10 prospect 10 these, can
he executed onlv by such courts or officers as are
spocmlly designated in ihe ret for the purpose.
The power, therefore, s exclusive IN these courts
or officers both respects the tribunals Of the
State. or others of the federal government. Nc-
thcr can act or interfere in the execution of the
exercise authority. its acts would be oor1m
noB ilt8ice and yoid.
These propositions are elementary and so OBJ
rons as 90 require no further comment
il seems TO be supposed, however in some
quarters, that the State power, exercised by fs
Tribunals, under the writ Of haboas corpus, forms
an exception to this generally admitted doctrine
and that through the agency of this writ the flu
gtive may be taken out OF the hands of the fed
a. j al .t1 tsl.
arrest OF detaincr inquired into, and the person
discharged or remanded, according 10 the iudg-
ment Of the State magistrate. J bis is the eX-
ccption claimed to lhe exclusive power Of the
federal officers designated in the act
i is obvious hat the existence Of esther pow
or, OF the part of the State tribunals would be
fatal to the authority Of the constitution laws. or
treaties Cd Tie general government No govern
meut could maintain the administration, or the
execution Of It's Jaws, civil or criminal, II their
consitutoRahtj or me jurisdiction Of her judicial
Tribunals, tres subject to The determination Of an.
oHsr We need not stop, however, TO discuss
tins question, az It urose end was settled in the
case Of the United States ys. Peters 3 Cmnch.
10. more iamiiiarly known as the Oimstcad
case.
IT Is proper to say. in order TO guard against
mscOnsructon do not claim that tie mere fact
Of commitment. or detaincr Of q prisoner hv an
oihcer OF me federal government. bnrs the issu-
Iis or tne exercise OF me power under iilis writ.
az iiOl" II. lhese ohceTs may ne Enlily oil De
legal restraints OF the liberty of the citizen the
same as others ondihe right ofhe Siaic orihor-
iiies 70 inquire ipio them IL not douafed oad is
The duty n The qbicer 10 obey liz authority BIZ ma
king rfiurn. IN that is claimed, Or coaicnded
.jof' 's h7' 'rhen u Is ho~n hat he oennnincm
ici7iaer is under HE constitution, or iato oil
tie tniicf STATES treaty, The tolrtrgf The Stale
These views Of the paramount authority ofthc
llws q ne federal go'ernnen m no way endan-
5ss 80 lo,'1oJ y, a,,'' "J wa, =" ,'a
ment. afofds the sppropriate and elIorinal rcrno.
dy for ony illegany in the process, or want Of iu-
isleuon OF me court or tor any unconstiuiion
sn,3,''-,, ~ i'o ,g,'' J, 81 p'S ai
csry. INC views we have presentei viii cx.
plain provision in this act of 1850, which is
son'e"Ai obscure aiigde to The last clause
,iargte osan,cd IN ,be amman, 4, rc,' ,lo
fugitive shall prevent all nolestation Of such
person or persons by any process issued by any
oou '' ai.. 81 o'l'' le's9n "ioso
other pr.e.,esthe STATE writ of babcns cornus il
could not have intended, or, at least oughtn 10
pg construed, as intending TO ombrncc thai Wrll
',rs il ,,,t - -. %"
As II respects the Sia,c wr,, we have seen. Gon,
the views expressed, that it is bat declaratory Of
'ls e"s1ig il"' ana not me Introduction OF any
mount authority ~ tbe cert'6cste ,,oniJ Ea,e
been tho same so far as tht process WAS con-
cefned
" re'nnrk--lst The Vermont net does not
contemplate Interference by habeas corpus after
the federal commissioner or Judge has decided
the case and issued the certificate for removal
and therefore does not fall within the prohibition
Of The sixth section Of the fugitive slave act So
we understand the matter
= The remedy Of hobeas corpus by federal
Judges may Hof an Vermont, be as prompt aud
summary az when issued by state judges. Suppose
the alleged fugitive Is held by the district Judge
there is no federal officer left to issue wit of
habeas corpus, except in the rare case Of term
OF the I. ;. Circuit Court, ana the presence Of
the circuit judge. Practically, then, if the ar
rest is made by the district Judge there is no of
ficer in the state who can issue habeas corpus
and if the arrest is made by commissioner,
there is but one officer in the state to whom APP
80 4. Il a Al