The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-02-24

dction may pass upon the rights of litigants,
whatever the question involved, unless expressly
restrained. If party bases his claim or de-
fence upon law of England or France, or upon
the Constitution or laws of any other State, or
of the United States, it becomes the duty of this
State court to construe such laws, by whatever
sovereignty enacted. Because England aud
France and the several States each superior
in the enactment of their own laws, will error
hence lie to their courts2 l admit there would
be propriety, acre the po,cer granted in the
exercise by the Supreme Court of the United
States of appellate jurisdiction from the State
courts, than in its exercise by courts of extra
territorial Jurisdiction. But the reasoning of the
court, when il leaves the record to founder in
the mire of conjecture, applies as well to one as
the other.
But it is said the Constitution, and laws of the
United States in pursuance thereof are the su-
preme law. Most true but does it follow that
hence the Supreme Court of the United States
has appellate jurisdiction over the State courts
The State judges are all sworn to support the
Constitution of the United States they are sworn
to administer its laws. Except in actions per-
tanning to the realty, they can only hear COM
plants against persons within the bailiwick.
These judges are their natural protectors, and as
representatives of the local sovereign, ought to
decide all local tenures. The plaintiff who ap-
peals to them, and the defendant who sits under
their shadow, cannot complain of their decision.
" The supreme law of the land " is Just as bind
ing upon them as upon Federal court; and there
is no reason to believe they will not administer
it as honestly, rs impartially. Most of the rea-
soning of the Federal court, in assuming this
appellate jurisdiction, is mean imputation upon
their integrity. | have yet to learn that the
courts of the States, at least such of them as
have fallen under my cognizance, are a Whit be-
hind the Federal Supreme Court in learning, in
- I~x,sff oA
Piles of our Government. / might say more.
But, it is said, we should have uniformity in
constitutional interpretations that all the people
may hold the same doctrine. This may be i'm
portant, or may not but it certainly cannot be
obtained through the Supreme Court For, first
ly, it has ne power to decide these questions for
the people at large. 1t can only give or with
hold relief from some particular litigant, in
given case, and can go no further. And, besides,
experience has shown that constitutional ques-
tions have not been settled in this way. They
have been settled only by the verdict and general
acquiescence of the people, and generally against
the opinion of the Supreme Court. And even
this twenty-ffth section, which seeks uniformity
by a method unknown to the Constitution, fails
upon the face of it. 1t provides for appeals in
only portion of the cases. If the State court
decides, however enormously, an favor of the
party seeking to avail himself of some Federal
weapon or cover, it is all right. There is no ap-
peal. 1t is only when such weapon or cover is
held Illegal that appeal lies; thus making dis
tinction unjust to parties and odious to the
States.
But l am compelled to drop this subject just
as it opens before me, or omit other things.
In the same bill before spoken of provided
for the repeal of the seventh section of the act of
March 2, 1888, "further to provide for the col
lection of duties on imports" a Statutes at
Large, page 1884, commonly called the force
act" | think the whole act should be repealed.
grant of extraordinary power for a particular
emergency should never become part OF a perma-
nent system. The seventh section extends the
jurisdiction of the Federal judges in habeas cor
pus to cases when the prisoner is confined " for
any act done, or omitted to be DONE in pursu-
ance of a law of the United States, or any order,
process or decree, of any judge court thereof"
1t was drawn upon the supposition that Federal
officers would be imprisoned for the proper exc
cution of Federal process, or collection of Fed
eral revenue 1t was designed to meet the then
threatened resistance of South Carolina; and,
though it might have been necessary in that
emergency, its continued existence implies an
unwarranted dstrust of the ever-loyal State au-
thorties. Respect for that loyalty if nothing else,
demands its repeal. No State tribunal ever has
or ever will punish any person fer a lawful act
under Federal authority, and the Federation has
no right to insinuate such disposition. 1t is
wanton insult, as if magistrate should plant
his cannon to command the dwellings of the cit-
zens, on pretence that they may rise against him.
Besides it is clear usurpation of Federal
thority. The States have a right to execute their
criminal laws-hava a right Tn pnt I1pnn trial any
man accused of violating them. A person is ac-
cused of murder. He pleads that he is United
States marshal, and the homicide was justitably
or excusably committed in the discharge of his
duty. If he sustains his plea, he goes acquit.
But that is the fact to be found. The truth of the
plea is not to be presumed; any scoundrel might
plead it. But this section of the force act steps
in and snatches the culprit from the custody of
the State and impudently says that he shall not
be tried at all. A district or circuit judge, who
has no more Jurisdiction of the crime than the
Sultan, will decide, in chambers, upon his guilt;
! and if he wills it, the murderer goes abroad not
acquit, but without power in the State to put
/ him on trial look in vain in the Constitution
for such surrender by the States of jurisdiction
over crime. And if it were surrendered, the fact
OF guilt or innocence is not to be decided by any
Judge, but the trial of all crimes, except in
cases Of impeachment, shall be by jury" (Art3.
My hostility to this hQGeGS corpus power is not
essened by its plain abuse on the part of Federal
judges Certain occurrences in the southern dis
trict of Ohio are alluded to in the message of
Governor Chase, of January, 1853. give an
extract that this House may the judicial an
ucS winch lrreSponSlDlllty may cut:
"A disposition has been manifested within the few
years, by of the officials OF the Federal Government,
exercising their function within the limits Of Ohio, disrc
gard the authority and encrnach upon the rights the
state to an extent and in manner which demands NJ
tice.
In February 1856 several colocd persons were seized
in Hamilton county fugitive slaves One Of these persons
Margaret Garner N the frenzy OF the monIni ppeled as
It seems, by the dread OF seeing her cdrn dragged with
herself back TO Slavery attempted to Stay hem on the SPOT
and actually succeeded ill killing EOrtls she and
her companions indicted by the gnnd jury The
crime OF murder and taken into custody upon a writ
! regularly issued from the Court Of Common Pleas.
While thus imprisoned under the legal process of State
court, the highest crime known to code writ of
haJeqS corpus was issued by Judge OF thu district OF
the United States requiring their production before him. The
writ obeyed by the sheriff and contrary to all cxpect
tons, and in disregard, must think, OF principle and
thorty, the prisoners were taken from his sody
OF the Judge, and without allowing any opotuny for the
marshal OF the United States, by whom thy were mmed
ately transported beyond our limits The scd ground
this action and order was that the indictednes had been
seized fugitive slaves upon Fedora commssioners
warrant before the indictment and arrest and that right
10 their custody thus AGO uired was supOr to Thar Of The
sheriff. under the process the State his loctrne must
necessarily give practical IMMUNITY 10 murdT whenever the
murderer may be seized 10y Federal oIclh as a fugitive
from service before arrest for the Under au-
thorty lmputng no wrong intention to the Judge,
constrained add, that his proceeding ems to me an
abuse, rather than AN exercise, of judicial ,owcr.
"A similar case occurred more recently ID the county of
Champaign. Several deputies of the Fccal marsha hav-
arrested certain citizens OF this State r some alleged
fence against the fugitive slave act, wh off haaS corpus
was issued by the probate Judge Of tag coEy requiring
|
into the grounds OF detentcn The sherb OF Clark count
while attempting TO execute thus writ, as assaulted by
these petty officials and seriously injured while deputy
fired upon, though happily without lfect warrant
issued by justice of the for ne apprehension
the perpetrators of these offences ThsYaIant was duly
executed and the prisoners committed toa under the
tody Of the sheriff of Clark county wit of haeas corpus
then issued by the district Jude had inter
posed the OF Margaret Garner requiring sheriff
Clark county TO produce his prisoners befe m city
Cincinnati This writ also Obeyed and prisoners
discharged from custody by orde of the Judge
the ground that being Federal officers charged
execution of Federal writ they had tight to overcome