Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-04-09
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT.

POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT.
The recent decision of the Supreme Court Of the
United States in the case Of S. NJ. Booth, is pro.
ducing a good effect upon community by exhibit.
ing in a strong and unmistakable light tho author
iy claimed, and the power exercised by that body.
Its powers as simply defined in the Federal Con-
stitutiop, were regarded as infringing upon the
rights and liberties of no ono and the people con.
scented first, to its creation, and afterwards, to its
continuance because its real power had never been
practically and tangibiy demonstrated. 1t was a
beautiful! and magnificent crcation-this Supreme
Court-with q look rs meek as u Grimalkin in re,
pose, its claws hid len within its velvet paws, and
It's keen teeth concealed from the Observers sight,
and its purr was most musical. But now its whole
appearance is changed, aud we have a savage and
Infatuated beast, armed with terrible teeth and
claws, and invested with constitutional authority
to kill and devour.
The decision referred to, il 10 moro than what
every one who understands the Constitution had {,
right to expect. and was bound to anticipate. And
yet some of the editorial fraternity appear utterly
astounded by the voice from Washington. The
New York Tribune rays.
Il. is stated that tho Supreme Court OF Wash.
ington has decided that the writ of habeas corpus,
when issued by a State Court, has no efficacy to
relieve q citizen of such State when he ii is held by
Federal process no matter how unauthorized, I'M
just or oppressive such restraint may BE. This
decision is eqnivolont TO a denial of the writ, as
an instrumen: Of protection against Federal perse.
cutinn or tyranny.
"If the States Of this Union have any political
rights whatever, they have the right to defend and
protect their citizens against all wrongs and all
expressions, and in certain cases their only resort
would DO the writ Of habeas corpus. Deny them
this, and the States cease to be the guardians and
protectors of their own citizens.
"Any State of thisUnion that will Weld to such
an Interpretation Of It's political rights as this, is
only fit to be enslaved. The spirit of freedom
spurns it with contempt"
The first paragraph not only states the decision
of the Supreme Court, but gives the editors in
ference as to what that decision is equivalent to.
The second one i, a condensed argument built
upon said inference.
The third sounds very much like defamation.
Let us look at them severally.
The power of The Supreme Court of the United
States is clearly defined in Article 3rd, Section I'd
Of the Constitution, wherein it declares that it's
judicial power 'shall extend to all cases in law
and equity arising under this Constitution, the
laws of the United States, md the treaties made,
or which shall be made under their authority &c."
1t is declared that all cases Tin which a State shall
be n party, the Supreme Court shall have original
Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before men,
toned. the Supreme Court shall have appellate ia.
risdiction, both as to lac and fact" 1t matters
not in what light the case of 8. ii. Booth Is re.
garded, whether as Involving n violation of United
States law by a private individual, or as a viola,
ton Of the same law by q State, which stepping in
between the U. S. and S. NJ. Booth, assumes the
responsibility by endorsing his act. The Supreme
Court has jurisdiction in both cases-it has appel
late Jurisdiction in the case Of S. NJ. Booth the in
%dividual, and original jurisdiction in tho case Of
the State of Wisconsin as the endorser of Booth.
In either case its decision is final. and either horn
Of the dilemma puts Booth in the hands of the Su-
preme Court, which means fine and imprisonmen mt
Tor doing a Christian deed.
The writ of habeas corpus is valuable, when the
laws are just and righteous, but almost worthless
when the laws are unjust and oppressive. 1t is
not, as the Tribune intimates in its second para.
graph, q writ which protects the citizen against
wrong and oppression. Its design and it's opera,
ton is simply to guard against, or rather to release
from illegal arrests, and nothing more. The
Judge who issues a writ of hsbeas corpus simply
calls upon the custodian of the individual in whose
behalf it has been granted. to bring tho body Of
the said person before him at a certain time, and
show cause why he holds him in duress. If legal
cause can be shown, the prisoner is not d~ischarg,
ed, but if there be no such cause, he is freed. A
warrant from a U. s. Commissioner, legally serv-
ed and legally executed, lie a sufficient cause. The
warrant of a State Executive for the rendition of a
fugitive from justice, is a sufficient cause. Tie le'
gal arrest of foreign criminals as provided for by
treaties with foreign powers. is a sufficient cause.
Any action whatever, is q sufficient cause, provid'
ed it can be shown that by that action the person
was deprived of liberty by duo process Of law"
The u. s. law under which the warrant Of the
Commissioner was issued, may be unjust. but the
writ of habeas corpus does not present that ques'
ton for adjudication. The State law which the
fugitive frsm justice has violated. may be oppres.
siye, but under a writ Of hsbeas corpus the Judge