The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-04-11

exclusive power Of lhs federal officers in the

exclusive power OF the federal officers designated in the
act rsE4.a.f e4 rea H r
IL is apparent if this exception be maintained there
is an end TO the complete execution OF the law IN.
deed OF any law OF The genera govementby which the
party is subject 10 arrest IL not claimed that The
Stale mag gslrate administer the act and enforce lis
provisions under this writ that authority. have
seen. is confined 70 The tribunals appointed by j, for
The purpose The fugitive must be. therefore, il taken
at all taken out OF the hands Of the federal officers by
force of some other law and the question whether he
she shall be discharged remanded 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 de-
teImined by law OF the State.
The ehec,ua abregalon of the act by the n'erposlioH
oil Tins WIT II admitted, will he sill more apparent when
we reflect that the power exercised under such
State legislatures may choose 10 prescribe and that the
State tribunals are not only invested with that pow er.
but II they act at all, bound TO act in obedience TO
and in conformity with it, There is limit therefore,
TO the extent OF the powers that may be exercised under
this proceeding in respect 10 the arrest and detaine OF
he fugitive, but the discretion OF the State legislatures
They may confer jurisdiction upon their magistrates 10
reexamne and revise The acts and decisions OF the fed
ea tribunals out OF whose hands the fugitive is taken.
and the State magistrate would be bound 10 execute the
power accordingly
1t is manifest that would be impossible to uphold the
due execution OF the law with the admission OF any such
authority
Conceding, however the soundncss of this general
view, and the inability OF The Slate tribunals to interfere
with the federal authorities when they are acting upon
cases arising under the constitution laws OF Congress
treaties. still it is argued that they possess the power
under the writ TO inquire into the legality oi the author
lty under which the prisoner is held, and which may in
yove the con siiluonai'y OF The law and jurisdiction OF
the court or Ginccrs .6 ....
STATE TRIBUNALS vs. FEDERAL COURTS
is obvious that the existence of either power, the
part OF The Slate Tribunals, would be fatal 10 the author
y of The constitution, laws, treaties OF The general gov
ernment. No government could maintain the admins
trafn fha IS
If Their consluiona The jurisdiction OF her judicial
tribunals, subject to the determination OF another
We need not stop however, 10 discuss this question as
ii and settled in the of the United States
u.s. Peters (3 Cranch, ll5) more iami!iarly known as
Olmstead's
The legislature Of Pennsy lvania had passed an ACT
declaring that The jurisdiction claimed by the district
court OF The United States was unconstitutional, and
empowered the government to resist the execuon of lis
Judgment
Chief Justice Marshall in delivering the opinion Of the
court, observed that " the legislatures OF the several
States may, al will annn the judgments OF the courts Of
the United States and destroy the hts acquired under
these Judgments, the constitution itself becomes solemn
mockery, and the nation is deprived Of the mtaas Of
forcing lis laws by the nsIumentaty oi lis ogn rbu-
nails" He further remarked that "f the ultimate right
TO determine the jurisdiction OF the OF the Union
placed BY our constitution in the several State legisa
tues then this act concludes the subject but If that
power necessarily resides in the supreme Judicial rbu
nal OF The nation. then the. jurisdiction OF the district
court OF Pennsylvania over the in which that jurs
dicon exercised ought 10 be most deliberately
spec may be considered, cannot be permitted TO prelu
dice the question"
need not add ,ba, the Judgment was regularly en-.
forced, notwithstanding the Stale act. e
There have been different opinions entertained by the
judges OF the States US 10 their power under this act 10
decide upon the validity oil commitment detainer by
the authority oi the United States But those who have
been inclined TO entertain thus jurisdiction admit that
cannot be upheld where appears from the return that
the proceeding belonged exclusively to the cognzance OF
the general government
This necessarily results from the ves,ng OF the adi
oa power OF the Union IN the federal courts and officers
and IRON the fourth article OF the constitution, which de-
cares that this constitution, and the laws OF the United
States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and
all treaties made. which shall be made, under authority
OF the United States shall be the supreme law OF the
land and the judges in every State, shall be bound
thereby anything in the Constitution laws OF the
State 10 The contrary NOTWITHSTANDING
If the exclusive power to execpe the act in the fed
era judiciary, and act to be regarded the supreme
law OF the land, and 10 be obeyed such, dc cu TO
by what right authority It's execution can be inter-
ered with through the agency of this writ by State au-
thorities Any such interference would seem 10 be
direct inlraciion oi the constitution
IL is proper 10 say, IN order TO guard against mscon-
srucilon do not claim that the mere fact OF commit
ment, detaner Of prisoner by officer OF the federal
government bars The issuing or the exercise OF the power
under thus writ. Far from A. Those officers may be
guilty of illegal restraints OF The liberty OF the citizen, the
Others and the right of the State authorities TO
inquire into them not doubted and II is the duty Of the
ottcer to obey the authority by making return. All
that is claimed or con,ended for u.s. that When II shown
law OF the United States, treaty, the power of
The State authority Is at an end
Any further proceeding under the writ is coro non ju
dee, and void and In such casethais, when the prs
is in fact held under process issued IRON the federal
tribunal under the constitution law OF the United
States or tcay-t is the duty OF the officer not to de-
liver him up, allow him 10 pass from his hands in
any state OF the proceedings He should stand upon his
process and authority, and if resisted MAINTAIN them with
all the powers conferred upon him for thai purpose
We certainly do not anticipate any such exigency
Far from it, The habiua respect OF the Judiciary, State
and national, for the law OF the land and legal authority
forbid IT. But il is proper that the officers should know
their fights and their duties, il, unfortunately. by posi-
b'liiy, any such ex'gency shoaid arise.
WRIT OF HABEAs CORPUS, n l.r.s
These views OF the paramount authority OF the laws o
the federal government 10 way endanger the liberty OF
the citizen The writ OF hobta corpus secured 10 him
under that government affords the appropriate and ei
fecua remedy for any iegaity in The process, want
OF jurisdiction OF The court, for any unconsutonaly
OF The law. The remedy Is as prompt and summary as
when administered by the State judiciary; and in this
way, by concedng to each government the free and
unobstrucied execution oi its laws and exercise OF
its own authority, harmony is maintained and per-
petuaed in the working OF most complex sys
TEN Of government. The views we have presented
will explain provision in this act OF 1850 which
of the sixth section, which declares that the GER
thcaie gfanled TO the claimant 10 the fugitive
shall prevent all moesiaton OF such person persons
by any process ISSUED by any court Judge, magistrate or
other person whomsoever." This clause doubtless IN
cudes, among other process the State writ of habeas
corpus II could not have intended at least ought not
to be construed intending embrace that writ when
issued by the federal Judiciary, Congress did not pos
the powers to suspend IT, As IL respects the State
writ have SEEM from the views expressed that il is
but decara,ory oil the existing law and the iniroduc
ton of any principle. Without this clause the para
mount authority OF The certificate would have been the