The Kenosha telegraph and tribune. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1859-1860, 1860-03-01
State Rights--senator DselIttue

Senator Doolitte of this State, made an excel
lent speech ia the United States Senate on Fri
day last, in vlndication of the position taken by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the question
of State Rights. Mr.. Doolittle's remarks were
chiefly in reply to Senator Toombs of Geeroia
who had asssiled the position taken by Wiscon
sin, in reference to the authority of the United
States Court. The following is the concluding
part of Senator Doolitte's speech
"Upon the assumption taken by the United
States Supreme Court, that the Fugitive Slave
! law is constitutional, the conclusion at which
they arrivo follows irresstibly that person ar
rested under it would be i'm prisoned under the
authority of the United States, snd State Court
on habeas corpus must remand him into custo-
| dy, for he would be under legal restraint To
take the other assumption, that it is not constitu
tional, person arrested under it would be i'm
prisoned without authority of the United States
and the State Court on a habeas corpus must
discharge him, because he is under no legal re-
straint. What is the issue on the hearing of
habeas corpus case? The jurisdiction of the
Court in such case is not appellate not for
review not to reverse the Judgment of other
tribunals, but it is suit to inquire into the cause
of the Imprisonment of citizen and if illegal to
discharge him. The very essence of the issue is
is his Imprisonment legal or illegal with, or
without law? That is the question. Let us for
once take the negro out of the question, and for.
get that slaves or slavery ever existed. A habe-
as corpus case is collateral suit in which the
proceedings and judgments of other Courts are
inquired into just to the same extent as thew are
inquired into upon actions for false imprisonment
or in suits upon judgment To test the posi-
ton assumed by the Senator he SAYS 'Concsde
the Fugitive Slave Law ito be unconstitutional
'and still the District Court of the United States
for Wisconsin had competent jurisdiction >
What soleciSm ! All the world knows that the
United States District Court has Ia special and
Limited Jurisdiction, and only much as the law
Of Congress under the Constitution confers all
else is reserved to the State Courts. An uncon-
stitutional law is no law-it is mere nullity
The Constitution goes with every enactment an |
nulling every provision repugnant to itself: If ia
the Constitution which breathes into it the
breath of life; every law is enacted with pro.
wise implying that it is not repugnant to the Con-
in the cant phrase it has force s.suh |
ject only to the Constitution of the United States
Hold man in prison under the authority of the
United States when the Consultation, the source
Of all authority forbidS it? Go tell the people of
Georgia that her Senator contends that a law Of
Congress can give to a United States District
Court competent jurisdiction over a subject mat
ter which the Constitution itself forbids That
is higher law doctrine for you with a yengance
Constitution
Bring this doctrine to practical test, and sup
pose Congress, under the general welfare doc
trine, should enact a law and confer general orr
ginal jurisdiction of all suits of law, or in equity,
and between citizens of the same State; one cit.
izen of one State commences an action against
another for SANDER, in the United States Dis
trict Court; trial is had judgment rendered the
defendant arrested upon the execution; upon a
petition to the State Court fer habeas corpus,
the petitioner complains that he is restrained of
his liberty without any legal cause. The return
on its face shows that he is held under the pre-
tended authority Of the Court of the United States
The answer OF the petitioner at once is, that the
law under which he is held is nullity. is un
it is upon subject matter which
the Constitution it self expressly forbids, and
therefore the Court which rendered the judgmen
had no jurisdiction, had no authority to impris-
on the person OF a citizen. Is not that sufi
cient answer Or suppose the case to be an &C.
ton for false imprisonment brought against the
Marshal, would not the State be compelled to {
pass on the consttutionality of the law. and de- ?
clare the Court had no jurisdiction Without
jurisdiction IN the Court there could be no iudg-
nent; the whole proceeding is Coram non JUDGE.
1t is begging the whole question reasoning in
4 circle: 1t is like saying the world stands on c
IN elephant, the elephant on turtle, and the Il
turtle on nothing Does Court have Jurisdic
Ion by its own mere tpSe dlIH Take the case
If the ! nIted States District Court of Wiscon
in, and see where this doctrine would lead
We have no Circuit Judge of the United States ]
Dur District Judge holds both District and Cir :
.uit Court /; there can be no division of opinion
n the Court, and therefore no appeal 1t is with
10 disrespect to the Judge of this Court that
ay that the same Judge may indict, try, and
entence; even to death, any man, woman or
hid in Wisconsin. and there is practically no
ppeal to any other Court of the United States 9
i'd this doctrine of the Senator from Georgia
nd there would be no constitutional limit mon
is power-whether constitutional or unconsti.
lional, whether within or without the authority K
the u :. whether within or outside of his b
constitutional jurisdiction, with or without canse