Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-04-24

any body denies the right Of Vermont TO do that,
she expects The Courts to settle the question.
She expects no other "coniict" than that of the
forum-the Constitution being the supreme law,
and the Z. 5. Supreme Court the final Judge
Precisely that is the only "conAct" which can
possibly arise in this case ard we submit to the
judgment Of every man, whether it is not con-
fict' which ought to be had, and the sooner the
better
1t has been said, however, that there is no way
Of bringing this question before the Supreme
Court,-either by appeal, writ Of error, or other
wise. Certainly It is true, that the act Of Yer
mont provides no way of doing this but it is
equally true that it was not the business, nor
within the power, of the State to do it. Yer
mont has empowered her own courts to take pos
session by hubeas corpus Of such of her inhabt-
ants as may be arrested as fugitive slaves, for the
purpose Of discharging them If unlawfully or
wrongfully arrested. Is that power Of the State
doubted--or, the power being admitted is it
claimed that the decision Of any particular case
by the State court is wrong-thcn the claimant
has his remedy by writ Of error, already proyid-
ed by the Constitution, and also by statute Of the
United States We quote from the 25th section
Of the judiciary act of l7S9-thus:
"That final Judgment or decree in any suit.
in the highest court Of law or equity of State
IN rhich decision in The case could be had,
where is drawn IN question the validity of trea-
ty or statute Of or an authority ercrcjsed luder
the United States and the decision is against their
col t1tft- IN,
lidity of statute Of or an authority exercised I'M
der any Si1te. on the ground of their being re-
pugnant to the Constitution, treaties or laws Of
the United States and the decision Is in favor
Of their validity or where is drawn IN question
The construction o. any clause Of The Constitution,
or of treaty, or statute Of or commission hell
under the United States, and the decision is a.
gainst the title, right privilege. or exemption
specially set up or claimed by either party, &c,
a0g be rc-crdmined and rererSsd or affirmed In the
Supreme Court Of The United States upon Il irrit
& s. "'0'' o. o. ''''''' ''''''"'' '' '''s' 90
Now the sole question remaining, in order TO
settle the matter Of federal jurisdiction is this
is the decision Of state court, on writ of ha-
beas corpus, "a final Judgment" " in suit" ?
That question was decided by the Z. S. Su-
preme Court in the case ofGeo Holmes VS.. Gov.
Iennison, reported in lith Peters Reports -
This case arose in our own county, and is well
known 20 many Of our readers. Holmes was a
fugitive from Canada, charged with felony. In
the absence Of any treaty, and any statute, state
or federal, Gov. Jennson issued warrant to the
sheriff Of Washington County, directing the ar
rest and delivery of Holmes to the order Of the
Cauadnn authorities. Holmes obtained writ of
habcas corpus from the Supreme Court of Yer
mont, bu' after argument that court remanded
him to the Sheriff. to be delivered mp. The case
was lhon carried by writ of error 20 the Supreme
CouH of tine United States That Court was
equally divided in opinion as to wheth it had
jurisdiction Ia this particular case. A majority
Of the Judges bed, however that Gov Jennison
had no authority TO deliver Holmes and there
upon the Supreme Court of Vermont reversed
is decision and discharged him. An incidental
question raised and decided in The q. s. Supreme
Court is precisely in point to our habeas corpus
act We quote the opinion Of Chief Justice la
ney, and Judges Story Mclean and Wayne, in
these words Of the Chief Iustioe
ave hold that the judgment Of The Vermont
Court, now before US. ioas fnai judgment IN u
suit; and the plantf in error is, therefore, emit
tied TO have It re-eXamined in this Court by writ
OF error IAN Of Peters.
Judge Catron dissented on other points, but
on this said:
" concur, that n proceeding by habeas cor
pus is q suit within the meaning of the iudicia-
rf and that 3. rniuaal In dice Ita-fra 81
defendant is final judgment IN such sllit.'-l4
Peters, 597.
Judge Thompson declined giving an opinion
on this points Judge Barbour did not notice it /;
and Of all the eight Judges, one only Judge
Baldwin, dissented. BY FIVE Judges to one then,
this point was settled. We think it safe to say,
therefore, as a matter settled, beyond all dispute,
by the 25th sec. Of the Judiciary act and the
opinion of the highest tribunal in the case of
Holmes, that the decision Of Vermont court on
habeas corpus, in any case arising under the iu-
gitwe slave act may be revised by the Supreme
Court of the United States. Vermont has done
nothing, and attempted to do nothing to prevent
this. Vermont has not therefore nldiifed, nor at
tempted to nullify, the fugitive slave law, or any
other law or authority Of the United States nor
has she any "conaict," or attempted any soon
llct" at all except Iudicaliy. Indeed, it is strict
~ proper to say, that as between The State and
the Federal Government, there is aud can be no
conflict at all. We do not sec how any con
nict' can arise, until the actual case is present.
3D. of an inhabitant' of Vermont claimed as a
slave, and discharge dccreed by the State
court on habeas corpus, and the case carried by
writ Of error to the L. S. Supreme Court 1t is
then, strictly speaking, a case between the claim
ant and the person claimed; involving, to be
sure, the legality of the proceeding Of the State
Court Hitherto, we believe, it has not been
deemed notification" nor even an uncN or
improper thing, much less unpatriotc, for State
10 assert ITS own supposed rights before the SUI
preme Court Of the United States, or for cu-
zen to plead the rights Of his State in defence
either Of his property or his liberty. Other
States have done this, even in matters of com
paratiyely small moment such as police and
health regulations. port duties, and the like nor
have we even heard that the patriotism of those
States was questioned by any body, high or low.
But Vermont has attempted to protect ITS own
inhabitants against kidnappers; she has inter-