Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1855-03-22
JURISDICTION OF COURTS.

would the question get settled I
With regard to the correctness of that particular de-
csion need to the record Of the case in order
to have any definite opinion but enough is known to|
evnce what is aimed at in the decision Of the State
Courts They clearly mean to decide, upon their own
eonscences, what the true bounds of their jul
rsdiction-and to that adhere firmly. And it is quite
time that the Courts Of every tate should maintain
that ground The decisions Of the Supreme Court off
the United States indicate strongly inclination so to-
extend their own jurisdiction, virtually to swallow
up the Jurisdiction of the State Courts. To this the
State Courts should never submit.
The State Courts have undoubted jurisdiction over
every question that can be rased and which is not ia
ken from them, and given to the Courts of the United
States, by the Constitution of the United States The
several States are Independent Soveregnties and are
much now, they were before the existence of
the United except what powers are
given away by the people to the United States, by the
Constitution itself. The words of the Constitution are
these, (see sections and 10 Of the Amepdmeats The
enumeration in the Consttuon of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny dsparage others retained
by the people The powers not delegated to the United
States, by the Constitution prohibited by it, to the
States, reserved to the States, respectively or to
the people, When, therefore, question of iurisdc-
ton is raised we are warranted to take it for granted
that the State Courts have jurisdiction, unless can
find something in the Constitution that takes that uris-
dction from the State Courts and gives it to the Courts
of the United States.
IF Booth was in prison. it was the right and duty of
the Court Judges Of the State of Wisconsin to en-
quire into the affair and if he was holden in prison by
nothing but void statute, it was their duty to set him
at liberty And they had the same right to decide
statute OF Congress to be ved, they would have to
decide the statute of their ewn State void If Con-
gress should undertake such absurd thing to pass
Ia fbott, had IL.
shape Of law of Congress would give it no validity
1t should be treated by every Court as mere nuty,
and absolutely void Suppose that Congress should
pass law, with all the usual emalites, and thereby
enact that creditor seize his debtor and mprison
him, without pseeept or warrant and creditor
should do Sc, and the prisoner is brought by Habeas
before State Court or Judge, and the imprisonment
justified by such statute, ought the State Court or
Judge to attach any validity to such statute? Surely
not. Every person would say, such Court or Judge
should set the prisoner at liberty, and pay regard to
such statute Well, Congress have just as good
right to author creditor to seize his debtor without
warrant they have to authorize Shareholder to seize
his slave without warrant In either case the act is
void, and should be so treated by every Court.
| Here we would observe, that Congress- or State
Legislature, may pass an imprudent law, which is not
therefore void But, if the whole law or some provis-
ion in it, is what they have right to make any law
about the whole thus out of their power should be
sdered void. If the United States Courts do extend
their jurisdiction beyond proper bounds, and grasp the
jurisdiction belonging to State Courts and the latter
yield to it, the tendency will be to limit the ndepen-
dency of the several States and form central United
States Government, which was never intended by the
people in forming and agreeing to the Constitution of
the United States.
These principles are Important as applied to every
subject but their Importance is very much enhanced
when reflect upon the tendency and of the
Slave Power to make everything bend to the subser
ency of the institution of Slavery The Supreme Court
have begun thus to extend their jurisdiction by con-
strucon, and it has been acquesced in by the State
Courts, that the Slave Power is encouraged to claim
that the decisions of the United States ourts are bind
ing upon the State Courts as authority whereas they
should not be regarded by the State Lourt as of any
authority, upon constitutional questions, any further
than their reasonings extend and convince The State
Courts are ommpotent in deciding upon their own
Jurisdiction as are the United States Courts in deciding
upon theirs If the interference of the two Jurisdictions
should become so great as to require amendment of
the Constitution, let such amendment be made; and
not suffer the Supreme Court Of the United States by
an improper extension of their jurisdiction virtually to
amend the Constitution, without vote Of the people
which vote Of the people is secured to them every
amendment, by the Constitution itself
1t is not easy matter to reconcile with the Cons
tuition the decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States in the Of Prgg against the State of Penn
sylvania, reported in the 10th vol of Peters Reports.
In that case the question upon part of Sec
ton of the Constitution, which has been often quoted by
speakers in Congress, as the ground of their remarks
1t IS as follows, to wit No person. held to service or
labor In one State under the laws thereof escaping into
another SHALL in consequence of any law regulation
therein be discharged from such service or labor but
shall be delivered up, claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be DUE
One rule Of construction, universally applied to all
written instruments, (where Slavery does not require
some other rue that where the sense expressed the
instrument, is not free from doubt but the expressions
themselves have clear meaning that is to govern ;
and no one has right to suppose guess what other
meaning he would like to substitute instead of the one
expressed 1t is only when the words of the instrument
Icontain af tha,asalas G;+s =.