New Orleans daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1851-1866, 1853-08-05

Hpfer. BOA Cohen us. Virgnin, 8 Wheat, 3s4 ;
rigg rs. Pennsylvania, 10 Peters, 539.l
The doctrine Of State legislative interposition
assumes the position, that the constituted agents
Of State may arrest the execution of any law
emanating from the National Legislature. 1t
maintains that g State may impose fine or
penalty on any person employed in the exeeu-
ton of any law of the United States The car
rier of the mail, the collector of the revenue
| the marshal of district, the recruiting ofhcer'
may all be inhibited, under ruinous penalties'
and may be arrested in the performance Of their
| respective duties This doctrine further asserts,
that each member of the Union is capable, at
its will, Of attacking the nation, OF oostructng
its progress at every step, OF acting vigorously
and effectually in the execution Of its designs,
while the nation stands naked, denuded Of its
defensive armor, and incapable of protecting its
agents or executing its laws, otherwise than by
proceedings which are to take place after the
mischief is perpetrated.
If the United States cannot rightfully protect
the agents who execute fugitive slave law au.
thorized by the Constitution, from the direct
action of State authorities, in the performance
Of their duties, they cannot rightfully protect
those who execute any law.
1t is maxim applicable to the Interpretation
of a grant of political power, that the authority
to create must infer power effcctually tC
protect, to preserve, and to sustain [See Nc
Culloch rs Maryland Wheat. Rep, 426.l II
| is no less a maxim, that the power to create q
| faculty of any sort, must confer the power tC
give it the means of exercise. A grant of the
end is necessarily grant of the means.
| All Governments which are not extremely de.
| fectivein their organization, must possess, within
themselves, the means of expoundipg as well as
enforcing their own laws. To allow State tc
arrest the execution of law of Congress, would
be equivalent to expunging the act from
| the statute book, and leave it dependent upon
| the fuctuating will of the State Legislatures
| obeying or disregarding, at pleasure, this CON
stitutional provision, and giving or refusing
operation to it, by enacting or repeating laws
upon the subject, and thus changing a fixed
permanent, established, fundamental law, oper-
alive or imperative, as the Legislatures might
act.
The general scope and objects Of the Consti-
tuition preclude, therefore, the idea that it was
the intention of the parties to it, that the States
| should retain their absolute political indepen-
dence, or that they possess any right under il
to annul the acts of the National Government
The same conclusions result with equal certain
ty from view Of its particular provisions
Had it been intended that the States should pos
sess the important power of annulling or re-
pealing, at discretion the acts of the General
Government, this power would, undoubtedly
have been given to them in express terms. l;
is not even pretended that the Constitution CON
tains any such express concession. Not only is
there no express concession to this effect, but
the idea that anything of the kind was intend.
ed, is precluded by several provisions of an OPP.
posite character g This Constitution, ana
| the lars and treaties mdde IN pursuance Of it
are the supreme law of the land, anything il
the Constitution and laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding By this proyisi n
any act of a State, whether performed in its
sovereign or legislative capacity, pretending t.
annul an act of the General Government, is de
| clared in advance to be null and void.
We think the State tribunals haze no sucl
power The act of 1850 was enacted by Con.
gress for the purpose of carrying into effect o
national object. 1t is therefore a national
measure, brought into existence by the exertion
of the legislative power OF the Union, and il
would be monstrous if any State Legislature
could impede the execution of a law made for
national purposes, relative to Il distinct matter
Ger which the National Legislature has the
exclusive right of legislation. Congress hae a
right to judge of the proper means of executing
its laws; it has the power of directing those
means by any law not forbidden by the Consti-
tuition; and no State Legislature can, conss-
tently either with the letter or spirit Of the
Constitution, interfere with the exercise of this
power 1t is certain that the power itself is the
power of the nation--that the whole Union ere
at once the grantors and, (by their represen-
tatiyes,) the repositories ofit-the subject mat
ter upon which, or with a view to which It is
executed, is entirely national object, and that
the sovereignty of Congress over it was COM
municated for national ends
Tha decision of the Judiciary of Pcnnsylya-
mia takes the whole power over the reclama-
ton of fugitive slaves, from the tribunal
created by Congress, and by a strange pro-
eeeding exercises plenary jurisdiction This
is an unauthorized assumption of judicial
power, because it regulates the proceedings Of
the judicial tribunals of the United States.
We contend that whenever an act Of Congress
creates an offence the State authorities have no
jurisdiction regarding it.
We refer to a few Of the cases in the State
courts: and first, TO the Commonwealth rs.
Freely, Virginia Cases, 32l. This was an in
dictment for robbng the mail, under an act Of
Congress which gave, in express terms, iuris-
diction to the State Courts Bat the Court OF
Errors in Virginia decided that they could not,
under the Constitution, exercise it; and the
whole court entered the following Judgment
6 The Court doth unanimously decide that. as
the offence described in the Indictment in this
case Is created 5g an act Of Congress, the said
superior Court, beiRg State Court, hath no
jurisdic ion thereof
The same question came before the Supreme
Court Of New York, in United States rs. La
throp, Il Johns 1 This was an action Of debt
brought to recover penalty of Sl50, under the
act OF Congress passed August ,, 1913, for sell
ing splrituous liquors by retail contrary to the
provisions Of that act, which, ia terms. author
lied the State Courts to take Jurisdiction If
offences committed under it, The Court decided
that Congress could not invest them with sue,
jurisdiction, and they dismissed the case
| The case of Ely rs Peek r. Connecticut po,