Weekly national intelligencer., 1851-05-10

u pass such laws and the nvay Of all State laws on h
subject grt} a4a 81 a. Es ~
But the judicial authority most to be relied on and which
when diaincy ascened, binding and conclusive upo
all subjects within their special uri.dton that Of the su
peme Court Of the United States Before the case hereae
cited The question had before Mr. Justice Washington
then OF the Supreme Court Of the United States on the Cir
cult Hill y. Law, Wash, g. C. r. 329 He therein
expressed his opinion in favor Of the coustutonay Of th
a Of Congress TO which REFER without stating par
ticuIsaIy. -sa
But the before the Supreme Court Of the Unitet
States ~ 0az on special verdict and the point in question
fully discussed and deliberately settled Prgg " Com
monwealth OF Pennsylvania, l6 Pet. 539.
There was some difference Of opinion among the Judge
upon minor points, but none is believed upon the subec
now under consderatonthe const;u,onaity and bndne
force Of the Of Congress Of I793 and especially that par
Of which confes authority on circuit and district judges
and county and city magistrates to take summary jurs
dcon in the manner provided by the act Of 1898 some
the majority were OF opinion that Congress could NOT by III
own enacments require State officers such magistrates
countless ces and towns corporate to take upon themselves
the duty OF exercising such ursdcion but they conceded
that the law conferred sufficient authority on them to act
they should think ft 10 do voluntarily, and
restrained by State legislation On the other hand Mr. Jus
ce Mclean, agreeing the geners rule as to State officers
was opinion that under the peculiar circumstances Con-
ges had the power to enforce this duty upon magistrates
that they were not at liberty decline it, but were legally
bound 20 execute il. ss.sEt' aff f
law and adoP no regulation which would impair the right
an owner TO pursue and retake fugitive from labor but they
differed In one particular. The majority Of opinion
that e whole subject being placed under the jurisdiction Of
the Genefa Government the State Governments could make
no law on the subjects placing their Judgment the ground
thai % ne whole subject placed exclusively under the
cognzance of the General it was for Congress
to make al the rules and regulations upon the subjects that
was 10 Be presumed they had In the law In question: made
sufficient rules and regulations give effect practically the
right intsdsd 70 bA ann. and IL thus had been done
was sosy for Congress supply the de6csncy They alse
relied on the ground that State laws went further into de-
that indcaisd BY the Of Congress- might tend to inter-
feTe hssewith and that they prescribed precisely the
modes they would be merely supeHuous and embarrassing
On the contrary some Of the judges Of The opinion that
the State Legislature might make laws the subject pro-
vded only that they should in way impede hinder the
proceedings under the law Of Congress- These it believed
are the principal differences in the opinions Of the different
Judges They all concur in the construction of the constitu
ton intended to the right slave regain
the custody Of slave who has escaped from services in the
right of the reclaim him in other States in the
consutonaity of law Of Congress- and the nuiy and
validity Of any and every State law which would impair the
right impede interfere with the provisions Of the
Congress providing for summary proceeding before audge
or magistrate. a.
Mr. Justice Baldwin concurred 10 the judgment of the
court, but dssened from the principles laid down by the court
the grounds of their opinion, but stated Of his
he had however, previously expressed opinion that the
Tompkns.Bad. Rep, 57l. This appears TO Us to
be authoritative and decisive.
have thought it important thus inquire into the va
diy and constutionaty of the Of l793 because ap-
pears to be decisive Of that in question In the only pacu-
lar in which the consutonaty of the Of Congress Of
September 1885, is called in question: that Of 1893
obnoxious to the same objections that of authorizing
mary proceeding before officers and magistrates qualified
under the constitution to exercise the Judicial powers Of the
General Government Congress may have thought
sary to change the preexsng law, principle but in
detail because, we have in the of Com Pgg
some Of the judges f opinion that State magistrates
could not act under the authority conferred them by the
act Of 1898, when prohibited from doing by the laws Of
their State and States had passed such pro-
hibtoIy laws.
The present fugitive slave law may vary other respects
and provide other and rigorous for carrying its
provisions into effect but these made grounds of OBJ
lection to its constituionaliy.
We do not mean say that this court will in no is
sue writ Of habeas corpus bring in party held under
color Of process from the Of the United States
whose services and the custody Of whose persons
claimed under authority derived from the laws of the United
Sa,ss Thi. done of soldiers sail--
held by military and naval officers, under ensments
planned Of illegal and void But i. is manifest that this
ought to be done only in clear and in cases where is
necessary to the security of personal liberty from illegal
straint
II seems 10 TO be the less necessary call into action
the powers Of the State Judiciary like this because
Is quite competentto the judges of the United States Courts
certain whether be detained by illegal and colorado
hory Of officer claiming act under the laws Of the Uni
ted States This consideration perhaps Of other mpor
ance than showing that there is occasion for
drawing the authority Of the State and the United States
dietary into conflict with each other Such conflict
hardly sse, although may often impending because
1t must generally appear, upon cool and deliberate exam
nation Of all the facts and circumstances whether subject to
which law Of Congress relates is not within the urs
dicton of the General Government If it be 50, it is concu
sve All judges Of all courts obliged to act the same
principles, and be governed by the rules Of duty they
bound alike by oath to support the constitution OF the
United Sates which declares that the constitution ITSELF and
all laws made pursuant it. shall be the supreme law Of the
land
On the WHOLE we consider that the question raised by the
petitioner and discussed in the argument before is settled
by course Of legal decisions which bound respect
and which we regard binding and conclusive upon this
court contract.
Since the argument court this morning am reminded,
BY one Of the counsel for the petitioner that the law in
ton ought be regarded unconstitutional because makes
no provision for trial by jury We think that this could
not have varied the result The law Of 1850 stands,
in this respect precisely the ground with that Of
l793 and the same grounds Of argument which tend to show
the unconstutonay Of apply with equal force to the
other ; and the same answer must be made to them.
The principle Of adherng judicial precedent especially
that Of the Supreme Court OF the United States de-
pending upon the Constitution and Laws Of the United States
and thus placed within their special and na jurisdiction,
absolutely necessary the peace unon and harmonious
action of the State and General Governments The preser
vaton OF both with their full and entire powers, each in its
proper sphere were regarded by the trainers Of the consu
ton and have been regarded essential TO the
peace, order and prosperity Of all the United States.
II this were question for the FIRST time present.
ed we should desire pause and take time for consideration
But though this act construction of which drawn