Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1851-07-17
THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 10, fs5i.
Col. johnson Watts again.

Il n " a
paper the objections taken By this gentleman in his
Moors Hill letter. to the fugitive slave law. That
swer has called forth replies in the Ripley County Wing
and the Brookvle American, which brief reoinder
is demanded.
| Col. Watts objections the law were three viz
The difference in the fee of the Commissioner on de.
csion for and against the clamant the supposed
croachment upon the right the writ of habeas corpus
and the requirement of aid from the citizens the
tion of the law The second of these objections tacy
abandoned in the Wing; the first and second, in the
American, and to the third, it is claimed that
have misrepreseuted the law in This point
alone is all that wish further to notice.
We stated in our answer to Col. Watts objections
that penalty annexed the refusal of the citi
zen aid in the execution of the law This PROPOSE
tion both the Wing and American deny 1t is admitted
that the law does not in penalty but the
Wing that the law requires the assistance
be rendered, and does not aix the penalty is in the
power of the courts 10 such penalty they
please; while the American, putting forward no such
doctrine that the Statutes Of State sup
plies the penalty. 1t reasons this way. We have in
our State law furnishing persons for refusing to aid
shers &c. in the execution of process; this law be-
part of the act Of Congress- and the Judges of
the courts apply it in prosecutions for violations of
the of Congress. Here, then, are laid down, in
these mouth pieces of Col. Watts legal prnpo-
sitions viz that where law requires to be done,
and prescribes penalty for the refusal to do it, the
courts aix penalty; and secondly, that the laws
of State are, in effect part of the laws Of Congress
These propositions deny; and is evident from their
very statement, that their ncorrectness
must be settled by resort to legal authorities. Happ-
ly for us, they thus settled As to the second of
these propositions the very point in the of the
United States aaron Burr and in deciding it, Chief
Justice Marshall sad "Now in criminal cases the laws
of the United States constitute the sole rule Of decision
and be condemned or prosecuted in the fed
eral courts State law. The laws of the several
States be regarded rules of decision
tralslOr offences against the United States" Burrs
Trial, Vol E. page 1872 See also 1st VOL Kent's Com
page $685. We need not of course remark for the bene
fit Of ignorant of law Col Watts aud his
mouthp appear be- that offences against the laws
of the United States be prosecuted in the federal
courts And may properly here observe, ALSO that
if it is Statute that the obvious penalty,
and Col Watts is to be elected rid of it, propriey
would to dictate that he should be hauled down
candidate for Congress, and into some Whig |
county where he might be elected TO the State Legsa.
ure, enable him to accomplish the object. Again. if
the objection is TO the penalty why has Col. Watts
moved its repeal9 He has repeatedly been member of
the Indiana Legislature since its existence.
As to the other point that the courts may the
penalty where the Statute fails do it, there is
difficulty. 1t is power they possess by the common
law of England and that law in force here courts
could exercise that power. 1t for time, mooted
point whether the common law, as to crimes and pun.
ishments, in force in this country 1t is a
doctrine repudiaed in most of the Statss and
any question about it here has been expressly abroga
ted in this. Our r. 81 page 999, Sec. S4 enacs that
all punishments, prescribed by the law for Of
fences prohbited; =; and to the federal govern
ment, the question has been put by the re-
peated decisions of the Supreme Court of the United
States The doctrine that the United States as such
had adopted the common law first declared by Mr.
Justice Chase in 1898 in the case of the United States
worrall, reported in Dalles 3S4, and in Wharton's
State Trials 1s9 In that he said "It is attemp
ted however, supply the silence of the Constitution
and Statutes Of the Union by resorting the
law for definition and punishment of the offence which
has been committed; but in my opinion, the United
States, federal government have no common law
and consequently indictment be maintained in
their courts for offences merely the common law-'
And again: "Now, it appears to my mind to be es.
to be tried, and apportion the punishments to be
inflicted as that they should erect COURTS" Sc.
The question came before the Supreme Court Of the
United States the of the United States Hudson
& Goodwin, ana it was there decided, that the court
had no common law powers punish for crimes, and
could go step beyond the authority given by the
Statute Mr. Justice Johnson in delivering the opinion
of the court, sad "The legislative authority Of the
Union must first make an act crime, afix punishment
it. and declare the that shall have jurisdiction of
the offence before it be punished" Cranchs Rep
3d. This dicision re-afirmed by the court in
subsequent
We we have supported our assertion of the
law This main object, and as the article has
grown lengthy our hands, withhold some addi-
onal remarks we intended to add for future occasion
owe stated some time since that a faction of free
soilers tried to defeat the nomination of Mr.. McGaugh
ey" The editor of the Wabash Express calls
know to whom referred. We answer, to the editor Of
the Rockville Whig," the editor of the PerrysvilIe
Eagle" and every protesting Wing who tried to defeat
McGaughey because he voted for the fugitive slave law
OF course we did refer the Ygo county delega
ton, who were the friends of Mr.. Usher, and who
governed by other and different which
we think amply sufficient to justify them in Withholding
their support from the nominee Of the Rockville Con-
venton. The first open opposition to McGaughey was
free SOIL the second the in which the Con-
venton organized and the apportonment of the
votes.
Southern Sentiment.