Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1861-03-06

AANT VA N%'A1FAMN AA-tN ~ ia n lhANI Z
tIiiou of tAr constitution. The sever,Id de-
r.stu-uss + tn government arc ~co-arti-
u.5. a'.i i~.3-pnndan.. aui the high duties
imr"si u.,g each .g, 70 ;o honestly t4r-
-o:mal a~,,orIiu4 10 the conscience and the
Judgement Of each. This has been fully
recognized by our highest judicial tribun-
ais. In the case of the G. W. & I. r L.
company vs. the commissioners of Clinton
county, in the supreme court of this State,
Judge Ranney. giving the opinion of the
court, declared that ''the legislature is of
necessity, in the first instance. to be the
judge of its constitutional powers. Its
members act under an oath to support the
constitution, and in every way under res
possibilities of judicial officers" o. S.
r. SO. e
Again. the relations of the two depart
ments was well and truly expressed by
Judge Gholsn in the ease of Foster VS..
the commissioners of Wood county. I6 o.
S r. 543.1 The general and abstract
question W ether an act of the legislature
lie constitutional. cannot with Iropriety be
presented to a court; tie qqest,oR must BE-
lChslher tie ct furnishes tie rule 10 gor-
ern the particular case.
As to the wciaht and authority which
should he given to precedentS. there is no
ma erial difference Of opinion. even in
courts of justice. Our suprem court has
not bc>itate'l on several occasions decisive
ly 10 override interpretations of the fcder-
al constitution given by the L. S. supreme
court. and to assert the duty of independ-
ent judgment whenever the reasoning sup
porting such interpretations seemed to the
majority Of the judges iGconcluSive. In
one of the last of Il whole series Of such
decisions, [Shelby rs jefferson Branch
Bank-9 o. S r. Coz, the court distinct
Is said, there is no constitutional or leg
%islativc provision which makes the decis-
ion of the suErrme court of the United
States, III ono case, binding as a precedent
for the decision OF i similar case" o Q
Comfy. decorum and respect are to be
regarded, but justice and right are entitled
to u higher consideration" id. Gl3. If
this be the rule established in courts of
justice. the right Of independent judgment
Oh the part of the legislatu re is establish
ed, q tortiOri.
IL. Whatever right the decisions of the
supreme court of the United States are en-
titled to in regard to questions of ordina-
ry jurisprudence, it is notorious that upon
the political questions which now agitate
the country. the court, as constituted. has
not the confidence Of the people; and by u
proportion Of both judges and law
yers in the northern states, a number of
their decisions, from the Prigg case to the
bred Scutt case. are repudiatcd as mere
partizln determinations of suits originated
for political purposes, and decided 10y j
which has been unscrupulously pack
ed for the adv ntage of the slave power.
So long as judicial circuits of the United
States in the southern states are multi
piled in number until several of them con
tain about one fifth Of the white ilhabit-
ants contained in northern circuits, and af
f I'd only one fifth the number Of causes to
be tried. new and old, and especially so
long as it is an undeniable fact that NOM
nations of able %jurists to that bench have
been Systematically rejected 10y the Senate
Of the United States, merely because the
nominees have been supposed to b. I'M
to new demands of the slave pow
er, it will be in vain to appeal to the su-
preme court of the United States as an au-
in such questions as these. 1t Is
humiliating :hat We should have to refer
to these facts, but when it is persistently
that the judgment of the assembly
Of Ohio should be bound by the opinion of
court; 4 regard for legislative rights
and privilege. and our duty to our c%onStit-
uents demands the plainest statement Of
the truth.
III. But if We were to waive both the
objections above raised, there are still
strong reasons for cOntending hat the fed
eral constitution. even as interpreted in the
Prig case. cannot iuvalidate the Ohio law
under examination In that case, amidst
all its sweeping conclusions. two limitations
upon the alleged right Of reception are re-
coguized, to-wit:
lst. That it cannot be so exercised as
to interfere with the police regulations Of
the free states, and 2nd. That the exercise
shall not involve a breach Of the peace.
The court say, 80 guard, however,
against any possible miscOnstructiOn OF our
it is proper TO state that we are by
means to be understood in any manner
whatsoever to doubt or interfere with the
police power belonging to the States, in
Of their general sovereignty" lG
CPS.
This police power is distinctly admitted
in the same connection, to apply to many
matters which would more or less interfere
with the Immediate reception spoken of as
the masters right. The declaration that
the reception must be without any breach
OF the peace or illegal violence" is equally
cxplicit-id. P. 6l3.
The necessity of the reception being reg
by, and made in accordance with
legal forms, is distinctly recognized in the
opinions Of most, if not all Of the judges in
case. Thomspon, j., says id. p. 634.
Legislative provision, in this respect, is
essential for the purpose of PRESCRIBING
peace and good order Ill the community
cases in some parts of our country are
to excite feelings which, if not
restrained by law, might lead to riots and
br aches IF Tie peace"
Wayne j., says, id. p. G4O. at was
f~oreseen that claims would be made which
would be contested. Some tribunal
necessary to decide them, and to anthem
the fact that aclaim had been estab-
McLain j., in the most emphatic man
ner scouts the notion that the claimant
has the right, under the Constitution. to
take a fugitive out of a State by mere
lie says, p. Cos: IF the master
las the right to seize and remove the sla.e
claim, he can commit no breach of
he peace by using all the force necessary
% accomplish his object. 1t Is admitted