Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1859-06-15

ne States Tor The protection at lhe persLn
81 rights of iheir cit zenS. In de.erun-
ing the consiuiionslitv of the fugitive law
under consideration, and upon which The
conviction and sentence rests, the act is
TO be regarded as one equally applicable
10 any free ci'izan cf the State against
whom claim for service may be pre-
ierred by the provisions thereof
He referred 10 the various judicial
opinions expressed, some incidentally,
and others directly in favor of the author
ny Of c .ngress to leeislate upon the sub
jec, o. flgitives. The case of Prigg v.
PENNSYLVANIA, l6 Peters, $780, is the
only case relied upon in which the Su-
prene Court of he United States has ev
er attempted TO offer any reason Tor the
claim OF power in Congress on the sub
lect. The question WIS not then neces-
sariy before the Court for decision; their
opinion expressed in that case was. there
fore, necessarily Only an o6iter dictam;
aud though expressed in favor of the pow
er, il was only by an acknowledged dis
regard IF the general rules Of consiruc-
tion applicable TO The Constitution, and
| upon d mistaken statement of con 'empo
rdneoes history; and this, too, when re-
ference to contemporaneous history was
not admissible, even if correctly stated
lie Vac Zandi case (5Ih Howard. 229,
was only d realiimance Of the former
opinion; as is the opinion recently pro-
nouuced in the case of the United States
v B1oih.
lie also referred to the contrary opin.
ions as maintained and expressed by Mr.
Jefferson aud Mr.. Madison, in their reso.
lunons of 1893, introduced into the legis-
latureS OF Virsina and keniuckey, in re-
laiion 10 the power of c ngress 10 pass an
"act concerning aliens He also re-
ferred 10 The opinions Of Chancellor Wal
worth; Chief Justice llornbower, Judge
Baldwin, aud Mr.. Webster, maintaining
thai Cjngress had no power 10 pass fu.
giiive law. Insisting that the power be-
lonsed, under the constitution, 10 the
5 aes aiore T. legislate upon the sub
lect.
Speaking Of the previous decision OF
the Supreme Couri upon the subject, aud
the relations OF the Stale Judiciary to the
Fedora, he insisted that The State aud
Federal Judiciaries were each, bv the
Q Institution, left Independent, and ought
10 act with perfect independence; that il
was not onl v night but the duty of the
Supreme Court OF ihe Slale-in q case
clearly of Importance to the State or It's
ciIZens, sullicien, TO justify such a
cpurse, and under circumstances which
would dictate such exercises of their dis
crelion-no, to suffer d question 10 be
S lied, as 10 aug case coming before
them, against the clear convictions of the
Constitutional rights of The State or its
cit gems, by any adjudication made by
the Federal Court in another case
L lis was not a licial insubordinaiinn,
bat the u iicial Independence con emIlI-
It'd by the Constitution of the United
5 ates, anf which he believed it the duty
OF ihe SGpr8n Courl OF the Safe 10 tx.
erci,e ia this and all similar eases. Il
was the only position, in his judgment,
peacefully, and with due rospec, lo~ ards
the Federal Judiciary, 10 maintain the
Independent State sovereignty contem-
plated by the fr4merS Of The Federal
G1vcTnment and to avoid unconditional
surreoder of the constitutional powers
belonging 10 the States whenever usarped
by the Federal Government.
Entertaining these views, he added,
and. after caIdfuIly examining the Con-
siitulion and the act o Congress in ques
ton, With the aid of all The reason and
light afforded by The various oPinions aud
authorities referred 10, having no reason
able doubt Of the unconst1niiona,ity Of
the act upon which the prisoners had
been convicted and imprisoned, that, in
his judgment, they ought 10 be forthwith
discharged.