The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-08

q
agent shall mas adayit AFTER the certificate granted
that he has TO apprehend by force before
the fugitive be taken beyond the limits Of the STATE
which the arrest Is made il shall be the duty Of the
marshal ohcer making the arrest TO retain the fg-
tive in his custody and to the same 70 the state
whence he she had escaped and there to deliver them
10 the claimant on his agent; and 10 employ many
persons he may deem necessary To overcome such
force ana 10 retain them in his service long in
his Judgment the circumstances may require.
These together with some regulations as TO the mode
Of proof before the judge or oner embrace sub
stantiay every material provision Of the act And it
will excite think surprise, after the determined
opposition 10 its passage and threatened and in
instances, actual resistance to its execution in
tais quarters when 1t is seen that there is not power
conferred upon those appointed to administer IL judi
caly but what was conferred upon the judges and other
State magistrates under the act Of 193a law approved
by Washington and Adams. and enacted by the IA
thers and founders Of the repubhc--not one 1t is
simply, in this respect, substitution of the com
misscners in the place Of the State magistrates who
disabled and prevented from dsehargng the duty
by the State authorities Full confidence was reposed in
them by the federal government long they were
permitted to act. When thus disabled, other officers
were selected of necessity to supply their places Tins
is the only difference regards the judicial authority
conferred by this supplementary act Neither Is there
any power conferred by it the claimant his attorney
agent but what is found i'll the act OF lI93not one
All the additional powers are conferred upon inc nn,s
terial ofhccrs-the marshal and deputy marshas-who
required TO execute the warrants and other processes
issued in pursuance Of its provisions and which warrants
and processes the those provided TOR IN the
previous act and none others Every ground OF oppos
ton TO this recent act disny ushabe from opposition
the former is exclusively rciorrable TO the powers
with which the marshal and his deputies are armed,
a its eXecution-powcrs essential 10 enforce
obedience to the mandates Of the officers and TO put
down with strong hand if necessary all disafeetion,
disorder. characterization. resistance. in whatever
form presented. The apprehension that any new
orbant have been vested in the Judges or COM
msioners is entirely groundess there is pre-
text for any such Apprehension The only apprehension
which there is the slightest foundation is that the
powers which have been possessed by the judges and
State magistrates since the act of 1898 and by the
comm in their places, may be efectually
cuttd that the law Is made stronger than the combna
sAtHf OH. aud
that the provision Of the constitution may be enforced
and executed in the faith and spirit with which it
adopted
Another subject arising Of the provisions of this
law and which has material bearing upon its
tion. il is proper should be noticed.
Ey the second section Of the third article Of the conti
tuition dclarcd that The federal powers shah
tend 70 ell in law and equity arising under this
constitution the laws Of the United States and treaties
made or which shall be made under their authority
The powers therefore il viii be TO execute this
act Of Congress belongs to the tribunals and authorities
Of the federal goyen mt; and in respect to these
be executed only hy such courts officers spe
ciay designated in the ac for the purpose The power
therefore is exclusive in these courts officers, both
Il respects the tribunals OF the State others Of the fde
dera government Neither act or interfere in the
execution Of the law and any attempt Of either in
terere or exercise the authority its acts would be
non JUDGE and void
These propositions elementary and so obvious as
tc require further comment
1t to be supposed however in some quarters.
that the State powers exercised by its tribunals under
the writ Of taas corpus forms an exception to this
rally admitted doctrine and that through the agency of
this writ the fugitive be taken Of the hads
the federal officers and the authority propricy of the
arrest dctaner inquired into and the person dscharg
cd q r,manded according to the judgment OF the State
magistrate This IL the exception claimed the exclu
ye power Of the federal officers designated ia the
IL is apparent, IL this exception can be maintained.
there end the complete execution of the law or
indeed Of any law of the general government by which
the party subject to II Il not claimed that
the state magistrate administer the act and enforce
it. provisions, under this writ that authority.
have is confined to the tribunals appointed by il
for the purpose The fugitive must be. therefore. If
taken at all taken out Of the hands of the federal officers
by force Of some other law aud the question whether
he she shall be discharged rumanled will depend
upon the application Of that Law to the particular
What that law Is, or may be. must necessarily depend
upon state regulation; and the rights of the claimant
under the constitution and laws OF the Union, will be
thus determined by law Of the state.
The ,fectua abrogaton Of the act by the interpoi-
ton II this writ, If admitted will be still more apparent
when reflect that the power exercised under 1t such
State Legislatures may choose TO prescribe: and
that the state tribunals only invested with that
power but they act at ALL bound 10 act in obedi
ence To- and in conformity with II. There i limit.
Therefore to the extent Of the powers that may be
csed under this proceeding in respect the and
dcainer Of the fugitive bat the discretion Of the State
Legisatures They may confer jurisdiction upon their
magistrates 70 rs-sSemne and revise the acts and dec
siorAs az the federal tribunal OF whose hands the
fugitive Is taken and the State magistrate would be
bound TO execute the power accordingly.
IL j. manifest that IL would he impossible to uphold
the due execution Of the Law with the admission Of any
such authority.
Gomez ding however, tho oundness Of this general view.
and the inability 81 the State tribunals 10 interfere with
the federal authorities when they acting upon cases
arising under the const uon a Congress or trea
ties still IL argued that they possess the power under
this writ 70 inquire into the legality Of the authority
under which the prisoner l. hold and which may involve
the conssituiionay Ct the law and jurisdiction Of the
But obvious that the existence ~ either power on
the Tnrt Of the state tribunals would be fatal the
authority Of the constitution laws treaties Of the re-
neral government. No government could maintain the
administration the execution of its laws civil or cri-
mnal their contituti0nay the jurisdiction Of her
judicial tribunals subject 10 the determination 81 an
other We need not stop however discuss this ques-
on a. II arose aud vas settled in the q the United
states W Peters - Canch 49,. Familiarity know
- olmseads case. The Legislature PENNSYLVANIA had
passed an act declaring that the jurisdiction claimed by
the District Court Il tho United States unconstt
ona and empowered the Governor resist the cxecu
tion # H. Judgment
Chief Justice Marshal In delivering the opnion az the
count Observed that. il the Legislatures Of the several
states may at viii annu the judgments If the courts az
we ncd states and destroy the rights scquirsd under
these Judgment the constitution itself become. solemn
hcckcry and the nation 4 deprived II the n=ns of en-
forcing ~ laws BY the fundamentally Of 10 trbu.
has lie further remarked that II the ULTIMATE right
odetortnine the Jurisdiction Of the courts Of the Upou
i placed by our constitution in the several State Lexl-a-
.ufes men TINS act eonelraes Ibs subject but II that
81 NE nation then the iurC elton a the District Court
- ftniyvaia over the case ia which that iurisdictnn
va. ,Archtd ought TO BE- most deliberately exaninea
aud The act Il Pennsylvania With whatever reject Il
may ,c considered, cannot " Permitted 10 prejudice Inc
- not ada shet The Judgment was regularly en-
i"rc'd notwithstanding the State act
mere have been different opinions entertained 10y the
suose' "a The State t. their power under this act
" =, eide upon the validity q conmi, Mt or dctancr
Wy tie authority a. the United Stacs But those who
Lave Teen inclined 70 entertain this jurisdiction admit
that cannot b. uphold where IL appears from the
turn that the proceeding belonged extensively % the
e. enhance # the general government
thus necessarily rcsult from the yostng Il the judicial
power q the Union In the federal aud uhiccrs
and rom The fourth article a the consultation which
declare that Tbs constitution. and the laws Il the
United states which sha h. made m pursuance thereof
and a trcaiie made or rhich shall bc made under the
authority q the United States sa he the supreme law
81 the anu and the judge. ia every state shal b.
POUND merely anything in the constitution < laws of
tht rtete o. the contrary notwithstanding "
III me eNeufre power g. execute the i ~ the fe-
TatJumcafy sI one act l. 10 b. regarded the supreme
law o. The land sud u hc olryci such r diacult
70 zee ~ what right authority IT, execution can be- in.
terced With through the agency q thi4 writ ~ state
suthn1iti,s Any such interference would seem - bo
direct infractlOn n The constitution
" = proper 70 say IN order ~ guard against mscon
sHuttth dp not claim that the fact d commit
ment, or deaiuer - prisoner ~ officer the federal
n-HrInmrml. Lnar- Tho l..nn. tho ..nr.l.. M