Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-03-10

cism upon these words by another provision of the
same instrument in the following words:
"The constitution, and the ld,es Of the United
States made in pursuance thereof, and oil treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the authority
of the T. S. shall be the supreme law of the land
and the judges Of erery State shall be bound there
b." DC
Here is distinct recognition Of the power and
duty of state judges to decide upon, and to conform
to, all the requirements, of the federal constitu
tious and "the laws made in pursuance thereof"
If the term 'extend to- in former provision were
intended to be exclusive, and to vest sole and ul-
innate power in the federal courts and judges why
should the obligation of construction and obedi-
ence and conftritty be Imposed upon state judges2
Why are the constitution and the laws of the Uni
ted States made in pursuance thereof made the
law of every state and the state judges bound
thereby. unless those subjects were addressed to
the judicial mind and conscience of those ofHcersi
And why that careful phrase when addressed to
state judges, "he ldtcs Of the United States made
in pursuance hereof' unless those officers were
qured to determine whether or not the laws of the
United States were made in pursuance thereof?
1t seems to me that here is an express recogni-
ton of the judicial power of the states extend
ing to all laws of the United States and a requsi.
ton of obedience the part Of the state judges
to all laws of the United States, provided they are
made in pursuance of the constitution of the Uni
ted States.
This view is strongly fortified by historical
fact, that various attempts were made to create
and establish one ultimate sole tribunal which
should finally decide upon all questions which
might arise, in the of federal and state ad-
minstration, in regard to .he exercise or claim of
delegated powers in the federal government on the
one hand or reserved powers in the states the
other But the project was found to be impractica-
bic in the then posture of affairs and the attempt
was abandoned; the convention prefering rather to
incur the hazard of collision, trusting to the good
sense, patriotism and forbearance of the two gov
ernments, and the people, to meet and provide for
snch emergencies they might arise, than to Gre
ate one sole, ultimate tribunal which might either
abstract from and destroy the efficiency OF the one,
or absorb all the powers of the other; leave the
one mere league, or the other mere dependent
colonies of consolidated government, according
ly as direction or bias might be given 1t by tempo
rary exigencies incident to the commencement of a
new and untred system. 1t Is clear therefore
that the federal government can only operate with,
in the prescribed sphere marked out by the con-
stitution of the United States that government
is at all times answerable to the states, far as
to bring its action within its character; that the
judicial power of the Union is as much circum-
scribed by the constitution every other depart
ment of the federal government: that an act of
congress without the constitutional sphere would
| be no law that judicial determination without
the constitutional sphere would be judgement,
sentence or dec rec; that of the acts of congress
the state judiciary are bound to judge, whenever
they brought before it, ns to ascertain
whether such acts are 'made in pursuance" OF
that constitution, because the Judiciary is "bound
thereby"
The States never yielded to the Federal Govern
ment the guardianship of the liberties of their peo
! ple In few carefully specified instances they
delegated to the Federal Government the power
to punish, and no farther, and far only Withdrew
their protection. In all else they reserved the
power, and continued the obligation and duty to
secure the rights of their citizens, declared to be
inalienable, viz: life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
1t will readily lie conceded that the provision
which the people have made in their government,
for the protection of these rights in them individ-
ually is found in the judicial department.. That
is the arm Of sovereignty which they invoke when
their rights are individually invaded. Every citi-
zen has the right to appeal TO the fundamental
charter of both sovereignties to which he is sub
iect to test the validity of the authority by which
his right to liberty denied. 1t follows, therefore,
that the power which he has the right to invoke in
his behalf must possess the right to enquire into
the conformity of the authority set up over his
naturol rights with the fundamental law. s
the State judiciary is the only power to which the
guardianship of individual liberty is entrusted, it
follows that it must have the right to enquire into
such conformity.
1t would seem obvious that this power to enquire
has never been surrendered by the States. 1t is
reserved to them and the people thereof. Hence
it is original in the State. IL original then the
appropriate means and instrumentalities incident
to its exercise are equally reserved and original.
Among such instrumentalities, the writ of Habeas
Corpus is especially recognized in the Federal
stituton, and positive Inhibition upon the power
of Congress to interfere with its scope and func-
tons, except in specified cases. is carefully inser
ted. AS if it were not enough to restrict the
Federal Government to the specifically delegated
powers; but to render the power of the States
more conspicuous, certain and ef6cacious, for
the protection of individual liberty, all power
on the part of Congress to suspend even the
benefits Of the writ Of lIabeas Corpus is expressly
denied.
Therefore, so far as the proceeding under this
writ is concerned, it is original, and from the
cessiy of the case the jurisdiction Of it is original
in the States, and rs Congress cannot suspend its
benefits, it cannot abridge the power and jursdic-
tion of the State judiciary; it follows that it can
grant to no one exemption from the obligation Of
obedience to its man didaes and it as clearly fol-
lows that every individual within the State, no
matter by what authority he may claim to act,
is bound to obey the writ, because no power
on earth can absolve him from this obligation OF
obedience.
1t is sometimes said that this writ Is in the ma
ture of writ of error to review the proceedings Of
an inferior court or magistrate Il is sometimes
true But without stopping there to enquire
whether for the purpose of this writ the inferior
U. o. COurlS De UT De 10 Dtate autnOrl-
ty regards the Office of the writ in preceding
like this it can hardly partake of the nature of
writ of error. Every sovereign power has right
to enquire into the condition OF its subjects and
the authority or cause of their imprisonment.
This writ is the appropriate means for such enqui-
ry When the State it to enquire whether
citizens is imprisoned by virtue Of power which
it has delegated to another government, it does not
bring the proceedings of that government into re,
view; it only seeks to enquire whether the case
falls within its own reserved powers. IF within
the scope of the former it yields to the paramount
authority which il has helped to vest If not it
disposes of the subject matter according to its owr
course of procedure.
The obligations of the State and Federal Coy
ernments are herein perceived to be mutual and
, reciprocal. Tho one to abstain from interference
whenever it perceivos tho subject matter to be
within the attached jurisdiction of the other, and
that other to show that the authority which I
claims to exercise, is within the power delegated
and which it may rightfully exercise There il
Ia nft lieSin a