Washington sentinel., 1854-06-30

tice to his claim. Parol testimony is admitted
as primary evidence of the contents of any
affidavit record, or other writing" even though
such writing may be in the possession of the
claimant or of the officer before whom the case
is being tried. The dignity which the law has
wisely given to record evidence must yield to
the doubtful testimony ofa witness whose mem.
ory may be at fault, or whose motives may be
corrupt.
We consider this clause of the bill as grossly
unconstitutional despite the declaration Of the
Courdnt that the makers of the bill were care
ful in the use of language not to interfere with
the constitutional requisitions upon the subject.
Full faith and credit is not given to the records
of another State, when those records may be
overthrown by the mere parol testimony of in
terested witnesses. But the Constitution pro-
vides that the laws of Congress may prescribe
what effect these records and judicial proceed
ngs to which full force and credit shall be given
shall have as evidence. Hence any law Of a
State which renders null law of Congress pre-
scribing that effect, is as open violation Of the
Constitution as though it were in direct opposi-
tion to one of its express provisions. Now the
law of Congress approved May &c, 1890, pro-
vides that such faith and credit (shall be)
given to them in every court within the United
States as they have by la1 OF usage in the
courts of the State from whence the said records
are or shall be taken.' IL. U. s. VOL /, chap.
XI) In all tine States of which we have any
knowledge, and certainly in majority of all
the States, this record evidence is of superior
dignity to parol testimony, which cannot be
introduced to rebut it, where the record can be
obtained. The conclusion is, therefore, irresis-
table that the same record introduced into the
courts Of Connecticut is entitled to like faith,
credit and dignity. Here, then, is another open
violation Of the Constitution provided by this
law.
The whole law presents the most singular
interference by State legislation with federal
proceedings. 1t provides that the judicial au.
thorities of Connecticut. may prosecute wit
ness for perjury, whose testimony is given in
their courts. Provision is already made by
Congress for punishment Of such offences aris.
ing in the federal courts. The party himself
who claims under the law of the United States
the protection of his rights in the legally
constituted tribunals of the Union, is appre-
hended, tried, convicted, and imprisoned for
no other offence than the assertion Of those
rights-not by the Federal court, which would
have the right to punish him for perjury or
malicious prosecution there, but by the State
courts which can be legally cognizant of the
existence of the case only by the record of the
Federal court. 1t is unworthy Of free gov
ernment. 1t is unworthy of a despotism which
presents only those offences committed against
its own government.
We have thus attempted to show very briefly
the absurdity and the danger of this movement
in Connecticut. We have attempted to point
out the mode in which it not only nulli6es
the fugitive slave law, but violates the Consti-
tuition by denying full faith and credit to the
records of another State and the unjusti6able
interference of State legislation with the con-
stituted and constitutional authorities of the
Union. We yet hope that the popular branch
of the Connecticut legislature will awaken to q
sense of this injustice and avert calamity
which can only widen the breach between the
two sections of our common country.