New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-01-29
fathers. Jefferson, King, and Dane-the ~ =

rescue. The words when stuch III the er17m
tbroats of the Massachusetts Judges, the go
doctrine which the Virginia Court Of Appeal N,
longer dares to utter the Supreme Court Of Wa
cousin has boldly and calmly spoken out.
We have before us the first 2l6 pages Of u
third volume of the Wisconsin Reports, contas
ing the decisions of the Supreme Court Of 1T
State in the cases of Booth and Rycraft. N.
Booth. il will be recollected, il citizen n
Milwaukee, against whom, in May, 1854, pro.
ceedinps we're taken, under tho act of 1850 h.
fore United States Commissioner on the chnr
of having assisted in the rescue from the MarsAsl
of one Joshua Glover, "the property OF Va
Bencni S. Garland, and held to service unax
the laws Of Missouri, from which service he bel
ESCAPED into Wisconsin. Having been ARRESTED
upon a warrant issued by the Commissioner BOOB
sued out hsbeas corpus, on which he was brought
before Judge Smith Of the Supreme Court OF WIS.,
consin. BY whom he was discharged, on As
double ground: fret, that the kidnapping act Il
1850 and of course all legal proceedings undera
were unconstitutional and void; and secondly, that
even admitting the constitutionality Of that act
the warrant and other papers did not show sy
legal ground of commitment. In consequence u
this decision, the proceedings in the case wen
removed by certiorari into the full court, which
consists of three judges After argument all ofths
Judges sustained the discharge ordered BY judge
Smith. on the ground of the insuffciency Of tAa
warrant; while two out of the three, Judge Smith
included also held the act Of 1850 to be unconsti.
tutional.
Subsequently Booth and Rycraft were indicted
on the same charge in the District Court of tie
limited States for the District of Wisconsin, wha
Booth, being again arrested, again sued out h
habeas corpus before the Supreme Court of Wiscos
sin. asking to be discharged on the ground thasn
indictment could be valid under the act Of 1850 f
want of constitutionality in that act ITSELF A
however, the case was now regularly before Tie
District Court, and as the commitment undr
which Booth was held appeared to be regular tho
Supreme Court declined to interfere in this stage
sf the case-at which, as we recollect, the Pro-
Slavery papers all over the country raised
great shout as if the Supreme Court Of Wisconsin
had backed out of its position, and had abandoned
its claim to protect its citizens against false in
prisOnments.
Shortly afterward the indictments came on IL
trial in the District Court. The art Of packing
juries and of brOwbeatng them after they NJ
packed. seems to be as well understood in Wisca
sin as elsewhere; and though, on the facts, thefe
was really no case against the indicted parties IL
Marshal, the District-Attorney and the Distrct
+ xba,, a1a1 hy nf of grsHk
efforts in getting verdict of guilty; and upon To
Judgment rendered thereupon Booth and RycsA
were committed to prison. Again they sued ost
their habeas corpus from the Supreme Court OF VIZ
consin, by which Court, after argument, they wen
from imprisonment on the doubb
ground: first, that the records oftheir conviction did
not show any offense committed under the actd
1850. upon which act the indictments against them
purported to be founded; and secondly, that even
had an Offense under that act been sufficiently sct
out in the indictments and records, il would have
availed nothing because that actis unconstitutioud
and void, and can therefore confer no jurisdie'
ton on the Courts of the United States to fine and
mprisOn citizens of Wisconsin.
The announcement of this decision occasoneds
great hue -and-cry by the Hunkers and Pro-SlaveT
men throughout the Union, as contrary to the pnn
ciples of our Federal Government and leading
directly to conflict between the States and u
Federal authorities, which, according to these ga
tlemen, can only be prevented by allowing To
Federal Courts to judge exclusively, and upon u
Federal matters to do as they please. The Wiz
consin Court holds, on the other hand that 10
acknowledge any such exclusive right Of In
the Constitution and laws Of The
United States to reside in the Federal Court
would be fatal to the independence Of To
States. According to their view, the right 4
the Federal Constitution and laws
s a concurrent right in the Federal Coaha
and In the State COurts--the State Judges being
sworn to observe the Constitution of the UntA
States no less than their own State Constitutes
and laws--the ultimate appeal being, in case d
diverse interpretations, to public opinion and bs
good sense of the people, who are the superiors Al
the ultimate soveregns of all our tribunals and u
our authorities, State and Federal. To give eitx
to the State or to the Federal Courts an absoIah
and exclusive authority as to questions Of conaic
ing jurisdiction would be to place the one in sab
to the other which the Federal Consd |
tuition never contemplated. In fact, the doctns
of State Rights, as presented by the Visions
Court, while it preserves everything in the resoF
tons Of 9e essential to their security avoids msf
of the objections which have been urged sgain6
those resolutions as inconsistent with the pescefu
and regular working Of our national system.
In order fully to lay before our readers the views
hx-x h..G &c