Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-22

=. In this answer Justice Bathurst, Baron Legge,
Jusfre Give and Lord Chief Justice Willes en-
tirely concurred.
Justice Wilmot, Barons Adams and Smythe,
Justice Dennson and Lord Chief Baron Parker
also concurred, with this addition;
=" But the clearest proof must be the verdict Of
jury, or Judgment on demurrer or otherwise in
an action for false return. Could not question
the return by affidavit"
So much for this principle at common law, ir-
respective of special statute. Now we reply
again: that the return may be contested, and the
Judge be bound to try the question: by siatute.--
Such IS the statute of Vermont, and it has long
been so. Such is or has been the statute also in
Massachusetts, Connecticut and PENNSYLVANIA,
certainly, and probably in other States. The
power of the State in this respect we think it is
impossible to doubt.
Another objection is that the Commissioner
may himself determine whether the person ar
rested is fugitive slave. Certainly: but the
objection proves too much. SO may any nagis-
istrite settle every case. VIII you abolish the
writ Of habeas corpus
i Ho ldet OulIAtbh VIC cildli 0Otlit Is, lNdl an
inferior court may not take prisoner by habeos
corpus from the possession of a superior Court
That depends entirely upon the statute in the
first place the state may so provide, if it choos-
es In the next place, state courts, within their
legitimate jurisdiction, are not inferior to federal
Courts so says the Supreme Court of the Uni
ted States. Finally the state courts of Yer
mont, authorized by the act to issue the writ, are
not inferior in grade 10 the highest federal au-
thority in the state. The state circuit Judges
are eglal, precisely, as we understand it, to the
Z. S. District Judge, when acting as Judge of
the Cucut Court; and certainly they are supe-
rior to mere federal commissioner The OBJ
lection however, at best is but trivial and entire
ly unmportant. If the state has the right to pro-
tect the liberty of its inhabitants, it may place the
power wherever it pleases.
Summing M.
The claim of master to his fugitive slave
constitutes the "casc under the Constitution and
laws Of Congress Over such claim, the ju-
risdic,ion both Of Congress and federal courts is
erclusipe in every olher.case there is no federal
Jurisdiction at all, except appellate, to the T. S.
Supreme Court from the state courts of Vermont
If an arrest is made, the primary question is this
Is the prisoner q fugitive sidue ? and the state
maJ settle that because it is not bound to sur
render ireemen on the mere claim of a man
stealer nor to withhold It's protection from free
men whose liberty is thus endangered. Having
the night to settle that question, the state may al
so regulate The manner Of proceeding m lis o,rn
courts always keeping within its constitutional
power. Vermont having provided simply the
writ Of haboas corpus, trial by Jury, and an APP
peal, every feature of its law is within powers
reserved to the State and forbidden 10 Congress
by the Constitution, except by an entire suspen-
sion Of the habeas corpus in case of rebellion or
invasion.
Can State protect The personal liberty Of lis in
habiiants Tile question answeed.
Judge Wayne is a stakeholder he answers
Yes. Chief Justice fancy is stakeholder; and
emphatically does he answer-Yss. lie is not
content to say, merely, that fugitive slares must
be delivered up, but plainly assures us that if
any person arrested is not fugitive slave, his is
not The case prooided. forLyhe Constitution. The
Supreme Court of the United States says Yes
Whether speaking of the rights of the master,
the obligation of the States, or the power of
Congra.S, the assertion Of the Court is that the
clam Of a master 10 has higitive Stare is the ex-
act case" provided for. The acts of Congress
Of 1898 and 1850 say Yes. They provide for
no other" case" than the very one indicated by
the supreme Court they impose no obligations
or restrictions upon the States, beyond that iden-
teal "case" Aud the Constitution most en-
phaticaly says-Yes. On the one hand il limits
the right Of the master to take his fugitiue siare
the power of Congress to leglsate for the dev-
cry Of .tiiguiue sldres; and the power Of tie
States to +" discharge" fugitive siares while on
the other hand ltreserves to the States most am
pie and indisputable power over the habeas cor
pus, trial by jury, and every other process of
law" which a sovereign state may choose to ap-
ply in defence of the liberty of all its citizens
who are not fugitive slaves. Vermont claims no
power other than such as is thus reserved at
tempts to protect nobody but its own "inhabt-
ants !" and seeks to discharge nobody from arrest
except such as are held in duress without the
authority of the Constitution and the laws. We
hold, then, that the much abused habeas corpus
act of Vermont Is nstitutonal--valid-goo good
against the world. The remedies which it pro-
yides are simple and well known processes ofthe
common law; the purpose intended is the pro-
lection of Liberty and the act may therefore
well stand as a testimonial that Vermont fairly
understands her duties to the Constitution and to
Liberty, and will unhinchingly discharge them
all.
Let The Vermont .4ct stand
We trust the act Of Vermont tcW stand. 9th
ers may entertain different opinions of the act,
and may honestly believe it to be in conflict with
the fugitive slave law, or with the Constitution.
We viii not condemn them for their opinions
They are not answerable to u.s. nor we to them.
w hat we say is-iet the Courts settle the question
beiioeen Us. If Vermont has the power to pass
the habeas corpus act, no man can question that
the measure due to Liberty. If she has not
the power, ,at that fact be settled by the tribu-
mails established for the very purpose of determi-
ming such questions A Judicial decision, by
the Supreme Court Of the United States, would
he rasDactad-and he n summary and naacafitl