New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-05-23
STATE RIGHTS.
Culmcnced.

In his Veto Message on the Personal Liberty
bill Gov. Gardner undertakes to quote In Justlti-
cation of his refusal to sign it an alleged opinion
of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts,, signed
by all its Justices, in answer TO question pro-
pounded TO them by "myself" Now the
constitution of Massachusetts, authorizes each
branch of the Legislature, and also the Gov
ernor and Council, to require the opinions Of
the Justices of the Supreme Court upon i'm
portant questions of law; but "myself," /. e.
the Governor alone without the Council, has no
right TO call for any such opinions nor have the
Justices of the Supreme Court any right to give
opinions so asked for. Extra Judicial opinions
so given would not only be gross violation OF
official decorum, but such an unauthorized In
reference with the ordinary course Of legisla-
ton might well justify impeachment and re-
nova. from Office.
1t is understood that in the case of this veto,
as in the affair of the removal Of Judge Loring,
the Governor decided without consulting his
Councils; nevertheless we apprebend that in I'M
dertaking 70 charge the Justices of the Supreme
Court with an improbable offense the Governor,
in this az in bis former Message, must have fallen
into grave error of fact. The Governor
certainly goes quite far enough-many think
altogether too farm undertaking to decide
important questions of official duty without
first asking the opinion Of the Council whom
the Constitution has appointed to be his adj
ysers. Not only to set them aside but to call
in the Judges of the Supreme Court as his adj
yisers in their place without any authority to do
so, is doubtless project quite within the scope
of Gov. Gardeners constitutional ideas, but one
we apprehend with which the Justices of the
Supreme Court Of Massachusetts, would not be
likely to have anything to do.
But let US see what this alleged opinion is
that Gov. Gardner relies upon 10 uphold bis
veto. 1t is az follows:
"When any person either citizen or stranger has
rendered himself amenabe to the legal process Of both
Governments" Federal and State,l % the one which
by it, process and is officers inst obtains the lawful
custody OF such person Acquires priority OF urisdIe-
ton which cannot be nghully or legally defeated by
the other until the process FIST attaching shall have
been satisfied or discharged
This doctrine thus attributed TO the Judges is
in direct antegonism to every phase Of the doe
trine Of State Rights. IL surrenders every case
Nhert tnere IL usufpatlOhOl authority on tLt part
of the Federal Government to the adjudication OF
the usurping party. II is directly in support Of
that consolidation OF Fede raj power which every
Southern State has at one time or another yehe-
mently opposed. Under such rule the States
have rights as against the usurpations Of the
Federal Government. Although the COnstitu-
ton declares that that instrument and the laws
made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme
law OF the land, it does not say that laws which
find no warrant in the Constitution, but are
in direct hostility to il, shall be respect
ed. Ii encrOachments are made upon the
rights Of the States by the Federal author
ity, through the enactment of unconstitu-
tiona statutes, and especially if these encroach-
ments touch the question of the personal
liberty of the citizen, the State must inter-
pose to defend that liberty, or she abdicates her
high position as an independent State and re-
cedes from all claim to exercise any authority
but such as is permitted By the Federal Govern