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

power. But if to avoid collision an absolute, un
questioning submission on the one hand is roqu
site, and on the other, perfect immunity to claim
and usurp all power, and to be the sole and ulti
mate judge of the validity of its own claims then
collision is the preferable alternative, because
collision nvokcs the arbitrament OF the ultimate
source Ot all power, the people themselves, whose
judgement and decrees made and pronounced
by peaceful and constitutional means, which they
had the wisdom and foresight to provide in the Or
ganzatiOn of the government. Collisions of this
kind are by no means in the government
They have occurred from time to time, as the sup
posed energies of the country have called into ex
ercse new powers, or seemed to require the adop
ton of the new measures. But such collisions
have all along our history found their appropriate
remedy in the awakening of inquiry in II recur-
renee to primary and fundamental principles, and
in return to the constitutional sphere. And so
it will ever be, until one the other shall rashly
and madly rush on to extremeties, in defiance OF
constitutional remedies
| The State judges and courts are MS much bound
to support the constitution and laws of the United
States, are the Federal courts and judges.
cannot yield to the assumption, that the former will
be less mindful of their oaths and obligations than
the latter though can really perceive why the
State ju ges, may be naturally more mindful of
the exact line Of demarcation between delegated
and reserved powers, because they are under an
additional obligation to support the constitution
and rights of the States.
/ If these views be corrected how stands the pres
cnt case? Itis c!errly our duty to grant this writ
! to enquire into the cause of the prisoners cap
tion and detention. The return of the respondent
sets out such cause. Our next duty is to enquire
into this return in order to ascertain whether the
prisoner is held by virtue of any legal authority.
1t will be conceded that the only rghtful authority
| by which he he can be imprisoned, must be eEer-
csed either by the Government of this State, or
| by that of the United States. No other power can
/ rghtfully interfere with his right of liberty. But
it is conceded that he is not held by the authority
of this State. The next step in the inquiry is to
ascertain whether he is held by any constitutional
authority of the Federal Government. Whatever
such authority may be, to he Of any validity what
ever, must clearly appear to be within the powers
delegated by the constitution and laws OF the mi
ted States, made in pursuance thereof Any other
power attempted to be exercised by any depart
ment of the Federal Government, would be man.
ifest usurpaton, and Of no binding validity. The
National Convention that framed the Constitu-
ton, was exceedingly cautious nbout comforting
/ criminal jurisdiction upon the National gcvtrn'
ment; so much so that enumeration of the
crimes for which punishment could be provided,
4 was carefully made. Congress has, however pro-
vided for the definition and punishment OF nu-
merous other crimes and offenses, as necessarily
incident to the due execution of powers expressly
granted. But all agree, that the Federal Courts
can exercise no criminal jurisdiction, except in
cases specifically prescribed by an act of Con-
\ gress,
Il Every act of Congress must be conformable t.
the Constitution; that is, either the exercise o
some power expressly granted, or necessary to the
execution of some express power
have on another occasion attempted to show the
act of Congress, approved Sept 18th, 1850, com
monty called the Fugitive Slave Act was not with.
in the constitutional power of Congress. ] have
no time now to enlarge upon the view then pre-
sented. But may be permitted to say, that af
ter careful research, and much reflection | have
not been able to perceive any reason to recede
from the positions then taken, but on the contrary
it is clear to my mind that the opposite doctrine is
dangerous to the sovereignty and independence of
the States, destructive of the peace and harmony
of the union and ultimately subversive of the very
end and aim contemplated by that enactment.
cannot discharge my duty without again reitera-
tinfi the conclusions to which | then arrived |
cannot hang my conscience upon the suggestions
or opinions dictated by the conscience OF others.
They must Judge and act for themselves. So must
l. must be faithful to my trust as others doubt
! less are to theirs. But believing as l do, that
Congress had no power to pass the act of 1850
that the duties and obligations declared by the
constitution IN that respect by Sec of Art. of
! the Constitution were imposed upon the States,
and all power in relation thereto, reserved to
the States and people. l am compelled to hold
that the act is unconstitutional and void, and con-
fers no authority upon the Federal Courts.
This doctrine goes to the jurisdiction of the
Court which attempted to try and sentence, which
jurisdiction is always subject to inquiry and de-
csion in any other court in which its proceed
ings may come in question collaterally, or other
wise This is true of courts of general origi.
nal jurisdiction, and much more is it true In re-
gard to courts of inferior, spe cal and limited
ljursdiction
The 2nd Clause of the 9th Section of the lst
Article OF the Constitution of the United States
provides "Tte privilege of the writ of Habcas
Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases
of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may re-
quire i"
The insertion Of this clause in the constitution
clearly indicates the extreme caution which was
exercised by the members of the National Conven-
ton, and also the apprehension which they felt
lest the power of the states might prove too much
for thatO thelFederal government. While, on the
one hand, they obviously intended to leave to the
State governments the jurisdiction and control OF
this high prerogative writ, in all ordinary crcum-
stances, and on all ordinary occasions, on the
other, they granted to Congress the power to sus
pend its privileges whenever there should be man
ifest an open rebellion against the Federal author
ty or an invasion Of the National or State Terri
tory The suspension of the privileges of the writ
here referred to, could not be held applying only
to the power of the United States courts to issue it,
because such power could be made to extend to
but few cases, and more papably, because it could
hardly be conceived that the national Judiciary
would ever be found disposed to use the writ in
aid of the subversion of the very authority upon
the existence of which their own functions de-
pended Hence it is apparent that the exhibit
and the exceptions therefrOm, have reference to
the State functionaries and the clause must be re-
garded as restrictive upon the power of Congress
to interfere with the authority OF the State Judges
to issue, hear and determine the writ. This clause
of express reservation to the States of power then
may be regarded in two aspects, the one as an Ju
risdcton over the writ of Habeas Corpus, in al
cases whatsoever, except in cases of rebellion OF
INVASION when the public safety might require
susPensOn and in such cases as an absolute
yileges. But these cases must be declared by Con
| gress before any suspension can be ordered. All
this goes to show that the trainers of the constitu
ton not only recognized in the States the genera
absolute control of the writ, but by the provision
cited absolutely required obedience to it, on al
occasions and by all persons and functionaries
whether State OF federal, unless Congress shoult
Jo,lara tbe c-;stence Of the emergencies wherein