The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-02-25
THIRTY-sIxTH CONGRESS.
FIRST SESSION.
Senate.

Senate
WASHINGTON, Feb. "a, 1850
Mr. wIcyALL (dem.) Of Texas, introduced joint reso
Luton requesting the President to call out the regiment
Texas vorueers authorized by the act Of 1858. Mr. Wig
fall explained that this necessary in order to protect
the frone of Texas from the ravages Of Cortnas ban
ds,a, who have devastated the country along the Rio
Grspde Il mouth thousand miles above. The
resolution laid over
Mr.. FITZPATRICK, (dem) of Ala, presented the petition
ot Carlos Btterfeld for contract 70 carry mails from
New Orleans to certain Mexican ports.
he also eported bill for carrying the mail between
the Unhea States and ports the republic Of Mexico
This bill is esponsive to Mr.. Buteraeld's petition.
Mr.. JoHssoS (dem Of Tenn reported the Homestead
b and moved to make it the special order for Thursday
Messsrs HAus and Gw1S presented sundry memorials
from the legislature of California
The bill the relief Of William B. Herrick was taken
up and parsed.
Mr. Browns resolution relative to the Territories was
Mr.. DooIlrnE (rep) Of Wis, addressed the Senate.
He esd John Quincy Adams, during the last years Of his
was that which be the most abused that he had
sworn support the constitution he understood It, not
as Others del It. He had no npSosss
che constitution according to ie convictions No senator
bad a right TO demand an apology, and, least Of all
che Senator from Georgia. for the Supreme Court OF that
State, late "a 1884, after an able resume OF It's
difficulty with the Supreme Court Of the United
StAteS decided that CO equal ana co-ordlnate,
and not inferior subordinate-hat as to reserved
powers the State courts supreme aud as TO dele
gated power the United States Court supre methere
fore the United States Court could not give order 10
Stae court Wisconsin had gone to that length yet
and denied the appellate jurisdiction OF the preme
Court OF the United Statee II only claimed the right
decide Tor tseh questions Of constitutional law Mr. Doc
little then quoted the resolutions o 1798 the Cincinnati
platform, the decisions Of the State courts of Virginia in
1884, ano fennsy in 1898, in opposition TO the
powers Claimed for the United States courts Virginia
and Pepns ana had decided that the upr. Court
the United States Dot appe late TO the
State The whole acton OF the of Georgia
had been in support Of the same views. He did
not question the good faith of the
State OF Georgia. be would neither do 50 as
matter of taste or inclination. The precise issue
between the Senator from Georgia and himself whether
any authority could be conferred the United States Dis
tict Court by law in itself The Senaior
assered that such power vas conferred BE denied It.
The thing that the State Court han TO decide under
The writ Of habeas corpus whether the imprisonment
was illegal not and th depended upon the constitu-
tionaity Of the law under which the imprisonment had
taken place Unconstitutional Law no law at ALL and
yet me Senator that though the Law be uncoustitu
Aiona TIE action OF the United States Court is binding
CREE he Regarded the action OF the United States Curt
tuthofiy 70 sesian ihis 1iaS. The doctrine o, the
Toe Jug % III iH-t'tct Court nisht arrest, try
hod coLf hne 10 appeai could be hal There
cespotAm Ike tbis excel IA AlseTs he referred 10 the