Mineral Point tribune. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1854-1858, 1857-04-28
Judge Smith S Letter.

pupIlc ulEneF by n. CURrIS NoYEs
4 DAVID ID. FIELD, JoHN HIGLow. JouS
Jay, oAM L BLArcHFoRD, Horace l,Rrr-
LEY, MosEs II. GR1HNEL, HExRy c.
I bowLy. l.. ID. MoRcAv, JAMES BowrS
j. W. ED,IoSDs, w c. BRYAyr. A.
LEY HALL, ROBERT EMNErr. L. p.
/ CowLEs, X. NJ. BLArcHFoRp, ERAsrUs
/ I. BENEDlCr, SAMUEL LEEDS, WuIf,,,
JAY, }. A. I. GRAY, for his independ
ance and love OF justice in his action o.,
/ tbs Fugitive Slave \ CT, declines the hon
+ or, III al able letter, OF which we give the
main portion as follows:
! In pronOuncing the decision which il
/ became my duty 10 make, in June. 1891
III relation TO the Fugitive Act OF 1880. |
only did my simple duty. To have done
less would have been 10 fan IN the dis
| charge Of duly. To have acted other
wise would have been 10 acted impiously.
For q Judge 10 refuse to do what Ne. be-
llevua 10 be rignt, when officially re0uir-
ed, IS as wicked and corrupt as 10 do wnat
he knows to be wrong. [ desire notajpr.
therefore, but the award of my country
men, of duty faithfully discharged, accor-
/ ding to the dictates OF conscience. Vita
that am content.
You are pleased to say, gentlemen,
that as IN original question, YOU entertain
no doubt IN the correctness OF nv posi-
tlon. | thank you most sincerely for an
assurance which cannon be too hlruly ap-
preclated, and coming as 1t does from
names 50 distinguished, it could not fail
10 fortlfy my conclusion, If / had anv
douit before. But you will pardon me
tor sugges ing thai If 1t be correct as an
original Question, /. must be correct ab
nluo ad hnem, while the constitution re-
mains unchanged, for 1t is a question of
constitutional law. If correcl IN virtue OF
the prescriptions Of the constitution, how
can II become erron, oLs VII |; that IN
strument remains unaitered
The Constitution cannot be altered bv
judicial power. In a case OF doubtful In
depreciation, it is proper for Courts to set
tie upon Il construction winch appears
most correct, and for the sake of UNIFORM
Ity and certainty to adhere TO II. But II
IS submitted that the liberties Of our clri-
zans are not suspended upon constitution
al phrases OF doubtful Interpretation. On
the contrary they are 50 clearly defined
and strictly guarded that judicial construc-
uon can neither impair nor abrIdge them.
aud every attemptto overleap the barriers
Of the constitution IN this behalf o.ly
serves to tumble the daring advenIurers
Into lucXtricable confusion. Two memo
raJie instances OF this kind will doubles,
o:Cur 10 you, one IN 1887 and one III
1857
But whether The question be old or
n w, original or otherwise, the Supreme
Court of Wisconsin supposed that a citizen
had always right 20 test any restraint of
his liberty by the provisions OF the Con-
srtuuon, State and Federal, and to that
ent TO call into exercise the appropriate
.nstruncntalItits. They also supposed
hat the protection of the liberties OF lae
individual cItlzen was ConhIed TO the
States, and not to the Federal Govern
ment. The latter can interfere only
IA a very few prescribed casss aud
these. for the most part, auxiliary 10 It's
own Jurisdiction. That sacred trust was
coutded to, nay, is inherent in the States
whose duty tits to guard the liberties OF
lhe ciuZeus and protect them from all un-
authorized restraint, by wnoursOeVer i'm /
posed,
The States never relinquished the pow
er of executing this trust, because 10 have |
done 50 would have been to relnquIsh all
clam TO the allegiance OF their cIIzeas /
LOT u exact aile giance without affo.I.a-
proteCuOa, at least IN .heOry, IS 100 gar
ing All absurdIly for despouSm Itsui. 10 a.
tempt. To allow another government TO /
prescribe the extent OF tnulr power /
protection would be 10 allow that govern
nent to prescribe the deg e. o. aileg.- /
ance which the States mignl demand, aud, /
consequently, the extent OF their sover- /
eighty. Ia other words, to permit auolh- .
er power to absolya tn.lr citizens from
their allegiance TO any desirable extent,
TO T, dace their Sovereignty within any
convenient limits.
Though, as we use the word, there I
may be limited sovereignty, yet there can
BE- no such thing as sovereignty to a d.
gree, without the rIgAtfui power to pro-
teUt and defend that SOYtrcIguty TO that
degree. All admit that the States are
sovereign to the extent OF their several
powers. But what IS sovereignty wlthou.
the right to defend 1t! Wnat sort of soy
ereIgnty is that which depends upon the
will of another To admit reserved pow-
ers in the States, and then to affirm that
the Federal Government Is the sole and
exclusive Judge of what, or whether any
powers were reserved, their kind and ex-
tent. and yet to affirm that the States are
sovereign to a degree, IS simply to assert
that they are just as sovereign as the
Federal Government shall choose to per-
nit, that Is, they may play sovereignty
as long as their gracious Uncle shall
think 1t safe for the little ones 10 amuss
themselves.
Undoubtedly the Federal Government
has the right to protect and defend all the
powers delegated to il by the constitution.
1t possesses none other. They are all
derlyative. All other powers pertaining
to sovereignty not 50 delegated are re-
served to the States and the people
When the States and the people thereof
delegated TO the Federal Government the
power of self protection, and to execute
the powers granted, they reserved all
movers not granted and of cOurs.. that of