Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-04-19

lurtoocuou
TO the dissemination Of another We nsednot stop, however,
TO discuss this question: - and settled in the
Of ths United States Peters, Is Cranch ll5 more fsmi
Iarly known Omsteads The Lsgslaiare Of Penn
sylvsnia had passed an act declaring that the jurisdiction
claimed by the District Court Of the United States was un
and empowered the Governor to resist the ex-
ecuiion of its judgment.
Chief Justice Marshall 10 delivering the opinion Of the
court observed ha If the Legislatures Of the several States
NAV at will annu the judgments Of the courts of the United
States and destroy the rights acquired under these judgments
the constitution itself becomes solemn mockery and the
ton deprived OF the of enforcing laws by the
srumenaly Of its tribunals" He further remarked
that If the ultimate right to determine the jurisdiction of
the Of the Union placed by our constitution in the
several State Legislatures then this concludes the subject;
but if that power necessarily resides in the supreme judicial
tribunal OF the nation, then the jurisdiction Of the District
Court of Pennsylvania the in which that jurisdiction
exercised ought to be most deliberately examined and
the act of with whatever respect may be
sdered, cannot be permitted to prejudice the question
need not add that the judgment regularly enforced
notwithstanding the State act
There have been different opinions entertained by the
judges Of the States 10 their power under this act de-
eide upon the validity Of commitment de,ainer, by the
authority Of the United States But those who have been in
cned TO entertain this jurisdiction, admit that cannot be
upheld where appears from the that the proceeding
belonged exclusively to the cognzance Of the General Gov
eminent
This necessarily results from the vesting of the judicial
power of the Union in the federal and officers and
this constitution and the laws Of the United States which
shall be made in pursuance thereof and all treaties made or
which shall be made under the authority Of the United Sates
shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in
State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the consttu
tion or laws Of the State to the contrary Notwithstanding
If the exclusive power execute the act is in the federal
judiciary, and act to be regarded the supreme law Of
the land and to be obeyed such, il Is difficult by
what right authority its execution be ntereIed with
through the agency Of this writ by State authorities Any
such interference would to be direct nfacton Of the
constitution.
It is proper say, in order guard against misconstruc
ton do claim that the fact Of commitment, de-
tainer Of prisoner by officer Of the Federal Government
bears the issuing the exercise of the power under this
writ Far from It. Those officers may be guilty Of illegal
restraints Of the liberty of the citizen, the others and
the right Of the State authorities to inquire into them not
doubted and is the duty of the officer to obey the authority
by making return All that is claimed conteDded for s
that when is shown that the commitment detainer is
under the constitutions law Of the United States or
treaty, the power Of the State authority is end Any
further proceeding under the writ 10 judice and
void and in such case that is when the prisoner is in fact
held under process issued from the federal tribunal under the
constitution law of the United States, treaty. it is the
duty of the officer not to deliver him up allow him TO pass
from his hands in any state Of the proceedings He should
stand upon his proofs and authority and if resisted main
tain them with all the powers conferred upon him for that
purpose.
We certainly do anticipate any such e1gency. Far
from it. The habua respect of the judiciary, State and
National for the law Of the land and legal authority forbid it.
But 1t is proper that the officers should know their rights and
their duties unfortunately by possibility any such exgency
should arise.
These views Of the authority Of the laws Of the
Federal Government in way endanger the liberty Of the
citizen. The writ Of hubeGs corpus, secured to him under
that Government affords the appropriate and eectua remedy
for any egay in the process want Of jurisdiction Of the
court, for any unconstuonaly of the law The remedy
is prompt and summary when administered by the
State judiciary and n this way by concedng to each Gov
eminent the free and unobsucted execution Of it's laws
and exercise Of its authority, harmony is maintained
and pepeuated in the working of most complex system
of government.
The views we have presented will explain provision in
this act Of 1850, which somewhat obscure aude to the
last clause of the sixteenth section which declares that the
certificate granted to the claimants TO the fugitive
"shal prevent all moeaaon Of such person persons by
issued BY court Judge, magistrate or other
person whonsoever."
This clause doubtless Includes among other process the
State writ Of habeas corpus It could not have intended
least ought not TO be construed intending to embrace
that writ when issued by the Federal judiciary Congress
did not possess the power to suspend it. As it respects the
State writ have seen, from the views expressed that it
but decaraoy Of the existing law, and not the Introduction
Of any principle Without this clause the paramount
authority of the certificate would have been the sane far
that process concerned has been made question
upon this whether not it competent for Congress
confer the power upon the United States Commissioners to
carry it into execution As the judicial power Of the Union
vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts
Congress may from time time establish, the Judges Of
which shall hold their Offices during good behavior it has
been supposed that the power the law be
eed upon these courts judges possessing this
II is sufficient answer to this suggestion that the power
conferred upon the State magistrates under the act Of
1898 and which, in the Of Prgg the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, held be constitutional by the only
tribunal competent under the Constitution, to decide that
question No doubt entertained by any of the judges in
that case but that these magistrates had power act not
forbidden by the State authorities.
The judicial power mentioned in this section, and vested
in the courts the power conferred upon ordain
ed and established by and under the constitution in the strict
and appropriate of that that comprise
of the three great departments of the Government prescribed
by the fundamental law the the other wo-he le
gislative and the executive.
But besides this of Judicial power belonging to the
established courts Of Government there uncomfortable
portion of power in its nature judicial-guas udcial-in
vested, from time to time by legislative authority in ndv
dual separately collectively for particular purpose and
limited time
This Distinction respect Judicial power will be found
running through the administration of all Governments and
has been acted upon this since its foundation familiar
occurs in the institution Of commissioners for settling land
claims and other claims against the Government g Stat at
Large, 324-440.)
strong illustration will be found in this State under the
old constitution Of l777 By that justices Of the peace
appointed by the council Of appointment and held their Offices
during the pleasure Of that body Yet the powers possessed
by magistrates conferred by of the Legislature
upon the aldermen Of Cities who were elected by the people,
But need not pursue the subject the question must be
regarded as settled by the referred to.
The may be given also to the objection found
ed upon the seventh amendment to the constitution which
provides that in suits of law where the value in
controversy shall exceed twenty dollars the right Of trial by
jury shall be preserved"
The summary mode Of hearing and deciding upon the claim
- oc E.-.s