Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-01

] Judge SHAW OF Mass. rs wen ne ny Judge Nel-
son, and we quote all there is in the case to the
point, that the reader may Judge for himself
The opinion Of the Court was given by CHIEF
Justice Marshall and is Of course entitled to the
highest respect
II the legislatures Of the several States may,
at will, annul the judgments Of the Courts OF the
United States and destroy the rights acquired
under those judgments, the constiutoniiscf be
comes solemn mockcry; and the nation is de-
prived of the means of enforcing its laws by the
insirumentay Of lis own tribunals. The act
lot fenn.) IN question, assigns as motive, &c,
that the sentence, the execution of which It pro-
nbits, was rendered in q cause over which the
fedora courts have no jurisdiction. If the Wti-
mate RIGHT 10 deieminc he jurisdiction Of the courts
81 The Union is placed by the constitution in the
several State Legislatures then this act con-
cuics the subjects BIT DNot poorer necessarily
residcs ia Ne supreme judicial tribunal ot The ma
ton. then the jurisdiction of the L. s. district
court OF Pennsylvania. over the case IN which
/ that jurisdiction was exercised, ought 10 be most
deliberately examined and the act Of Pennsyl-
rana, with Whatever respect II may be consider
ed cannot be permitted to prejudice the ques-
tons Cranoh, 1856
We take it the whole extent Of the doctrine
here is, that State cannot annul Iudgmcn, Of
federal court, on tic ground of it's alleged I'm.
consttuiionahty and it cannot do this for the
reason that the ultimate right to determine the
question Of cons,tutionaty is vested, not in tie
State, but in the 4. $. Supreme Court We
think it clear tlat Vermont claims no such pow
err; nor does she claim the powerto determine"
'ns JVi,70''''o' "' i''''i' '''''.''y ''''''0' TO
the trial or rendition of judgment ia any case by
federal "u'noTlly-- uS."s ''e "oi' 0''''in.ne
in ln' sense o. eAOi"o''.s REVISION ny 'l' - -
supreme Count N"' vermont F'"'Py claims
'le Ishl 70 issue "'e "'' q """'" 0'P'" ]" e'-
cry case oil ue'a'i'ef Us save oy ".'l''er pro-
cess or Whatever au'uor''y' Ana mere is an-
'hori'y 10 lhe point
whenever any person IS detAIned rm OIL
S.lony ,i,;,Iy 9nd snno,li ,rrosse 4, ,l,o
warrant of commitment mr. nnless sucb nersnn
be convict or legally charged in execution, he
Is e'i'hed 10 ms 'crf 81 haOfdS corpus = hef
'','''' '''' ''''''' visa. ,''''-,s ''e P''s'l -
49,. - D' 'r ,9'D '''''
>,
' aug '' r ''''"'' anu mere 's uu'''0i'-
ae""
any m o,,, shr,s e' VI ,t! l0gr' uuuyr
he irrR nrless f,ov he persons dsioinrd ls,
by process from any court or Judge of tine O. S.
n.Ntng exclusive jurisdiction 'n lhe case a. Or.
my asv enn,nc, ,,,ho.i W ,,S" ,i ',','o
mai iurislsdon. other than in The cose If a 1
commitment for an alleged coniempt."-2 heni, /
~
Vermont claims also, and we ihink MS proper
and Legitimate consequence ofthe foregoing pow
ers the right to inquire whether the case is with
III the exclusive Jurisdiction Of the Judge orcouh
OBTAINING the person, and to hear all facts peril
nent to that inquiry such is the law of Yer
mont, mot, however by the habeas corpus act
OF le5O II has been the law Of Vermont for ma
ny yeats, and never has been questioned until
now
Does the Olmstead case apply to either Of these
points We think not. We can make 1t apply
only by forced construction of the langnago
OF Judge Marshall as II me had sand ledpo'Ju-
r7saieion IS creis'pcr and state jurisdiction e,-
trey ereludef M al c1ses ohere HE ultimate right
10 determine he question Of jurisdiction rs IN the
supreme CONT q me C"def States. Certainly (
TINS s not the meaning OF Judge Marshall; it Is /
not Ia" Tor II wonld entirely exclude the posi-
Dhty OF concurrent jurisdiction ln anycase whit /
ever winch can possibly be brought under the re-
vision OF the Supreme Court.
J. Judge Nelson expressly admits Chat the
doctrine OF exclusive federal jurisdiction does not