Glasgow weekly times. (Glasgow, Mo.) 1848-1861, 1860-03-29

to which the Constitution asf the State de-
clarss ''sball remain invioiats,' which right
is also asserted. a. before shown, by the
Federal Constitution. II i Is possible TO
doubt the correctness Of ths position here,
taken, that doubt VIII be dis.ipated by ja-
diciai decision upon this very point to which
| call your attention.
In 7seS the L.sislan.s- Of sKspsneky.
passed an act which provided that persons
Of color emigraIing TO that State might be
compelled to depart under that act. Do
ram and Ryan, free men Of color, were ar
rested in KnOx county. (Sss Darns's Ken
'neky Reports, vol. Up. 33l.) They
were required to enter into reeognizansa
binding them 10 lsaysthe State, which they
iakd to do. The penalty aijudged 'ws,.
that they should be sold for the term Of one
year. -
= The proceedings against them wsracon-
sidered by the Courtsof Appeals TO be in
the nature Of prosecution ( BY infermatioI)
''fOr an offence agains. the Comnpnwealth::
Ssy,ths report: "Ths tenth section. OF
The article OF the Constitution Of Kentucky
declares among other things, that the accu-
sed shall have, in prosecutions by indict
mentor information, speedy public trial
by an impartial Jury Of the yicihage.--
There was no jury in this case, and this
Court is clearly of the Union thataths &C.
Of lS0S should be interpreted as dispensing
with jury, and therefore it so far conflicts
with the Supreme Law of the land. The
act cannot be consliiulionally enforced with.
OH, The Intervention OF jury. A free man
cannot be sold even for an instant, unless a
jury Of his peers shall have passed cendem-
nation upon him "
In 1888 an act was passed To remedy the
constitutional defect OF theact Of 1903. The
amsndaIory act provides that jury shall
be summoned in cases contemplated by the
law. Subsequently, Gssrge S. Edwards, a
free maR of color, was presented for an al
legged violation Of the statute oe 1908,
which, as before stased, was ian ao,-io
prevent the migration OF free negroes and
muIattoes TO this that State"
A special verdict was rendered, certify.
ing that Edwards had smigrated to ths
State prior 10 the enactment of 1888, and
the Circuit Judge being OF the opinion tbs
The act OF 1898 could no, be constitution.ly
applied to an offence previously csnmit.
ted, the constitution fOrbidding tbs enact.
nent OF any ex post fac;o law, and tha. the
act OF 1908 was not eniorcibls without the
aidOf that supplemental enact menl, adjudg.
ed that Edwards was not gully, and there.
fore dlsehsiged him. The Court OF Ap.
pesls, (sse Darnes' Reports, vol. 8, pag.
AT. held that the enactment of 1898
could not be made TO retro-aci; lha, two ell.
temsnts were necessary 10 constitute the al
legged offence, viz: Migrating and Remain.
ing in the State given time, both of which
acts must be committed after the complete
ensctmsnt; that the act OF missation had
by the speration of the statute Of limitation
ceased TO be an offence prior TO the instilu.
tioo of the prosecution, wherefore IN ths
opinion of The, Court, Edwards had beer
properly acquitted and discharged. The
judg&tpt of. the Circuit Court was there.
tore affirmed,
The bill under consideration, in being
made applicable TO all free negroes and pu-
.Iallees who have emigraied to and settled
fin this Stale since lS47, notwithstanding
the Inhibition Of that statute, is essentially
ef pQst tacto, although the extreme penal
ty = matte to depend upon their remaining
in ihe State beyond stead future period;
Tor Hst pspally has been enacted since the
prineiPaI,scts tending tothe existence oi the
efieBse- migration 10 and settlement in the
ISiate-were Committed; which offense is
s1sde 20 consist in continuing to do just
wlai, by common consent, the communities
inwhich lheyreside they have hlthertoibssn
Permitted to do without mOls.tation or an
||intimatiOfi thSrthsy were violating the law,
of the State.
In view of the neglect by those supposed
q know the law 10 reasonably enforce the
inhibitory enactment, the real Offenss, CON-
mtited years ago might well be regarded
az morally barred irom the severe penalties
of this bill; and when it is so clearly appsr-
snt that the unconsttuiionality Of the act
renders 1t nullity, no one will attempt TO
enlurce il, nor woald il be prudent to do
so. A cEse in point is that Of Ely VS..
Thorn pson, "a X. Marshall's Ky. Reports
vol. 3, page 9Sl, an action Of trsspass, as
SAUL. battery and Imprisonment, brought by
free person OF color against justice OF