The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1854-10-26
SENSIBLE VIEWS FROM s0UTag IN PAPER
ON STATE RIGHTS.
From the Louisville J6urn5


Wo learn from the Charleston N rcury, that
Judge BsDning, of the Supreme O. urt in the
State of Georgia, has recently d. iivered an
opinion affirming that the courts of that State
are entirely Independent of the co arts of the
United States The Mercury has 40 fault to
find with this decision on the cont 'ary, it ap-
proves it warmly, and only expresses the ap-
prehension that the Supreme Court # the Uni
ted States will override it. and thas the State
of Georgia will submit. :.
We judge, from the course Of tb Mercury,
that, while it thinks that the CO irts of the
Southern States are, and ought +. be, indie
pendent of the Supreme Court of She United
States it holds very different opisicn in re-
gard to the courts of the Northern States. IL
believes in State rights for the Sopsh, but not
for the North. Some time ago, the Supreme
Court of New York decided that when slave
holder, on his way from Virgins to Texas,
took his slaves through New York.. they be-
came free by their first oontact with Now York
soil. An appeal has been taken to the Supreme
Court of the United States, and it is said that
the people of Virginia are to furnish large
amount of money to secure a vigorous and
powerful prosecution Of the appeal. All the
State Rights papers of the South, including
the Charleston Mercury, have expressed an
anxious hope that the United States Supreme
Court may reverse the decision Of the New
York State court. But what if the Judge of
the State court, after such reversss shall, in
imitation of the Judge Of the Georgia court,
take the ground that the courts Of vew York
are Independent of the courts Of sae United
States, and that the decision as to Thu fleet of the
contact of slaues with the soil of Neu'York must
consequently stand as las0 in that Std's! Would
not tho Mereurys mercury rise to moro than
blood heat against such q decision How can
the Mercury favor the appeal froI- the New
York court to the United States &C ut, if it is
sincere in its declaration in the Georgia case,
that State court is and should be independ-
emit Of the United States courts!
Take another case. A few wees ago, the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin decid d the Fu-
gitive Slave Law to be unconstitui onsl, and
therefore not binding on the courts lr citizens
of Wisconsin. The Charleston Mt .ewy, and
all the rest of the Southern organs ave utter
ance to their evaporation at this rsischievous
decision and expressed their hopeEand conf
dence that il would be overruled. But we do
not understand how the Charlestol3 Mercury
g. Co. can expect to have the deoi. on of the
Supreme Court of Wisconsin ovessuled and
annulled, except by the Supreme Court Of the
United States; and, If the courts IS Georgia
are independent of the United Sttes courts,
why are not the courts of Visions 80, too :
Is the Charleston Mercury satisfied nth teach.
ing doctrine which i'm plies that TIE Supreme
Court of each Northern State las nfs full at-
tAor,ty and potOsr to render the Fugat,ve Stare
Law imperative within said StatH and that
there can be no appeal to any nationsy tribunal :
Our own decided opinion is, that <Ae doctrine
of State Rights, as taught by the S-ashern uL
trGs, wil ere long become excessively unpopula,
tn the South aud our apprehensiobs is that Il
t0iit be taken up and insisted on cer txtenssvett
in the Nortk. The snnunciation the doc
trine that the State courts are not bound BY