M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-04-16

United States guaranteed that the
CherOkees should be authorized TO
govern themselves, and all persons
who had settled within their territory,
free from any right of Legislative in
reference 10y the several States com.
posino tina United States, in reference
10 acts done within their own terrific
~. The State Of Georgia, therefore,
had no more power to pass a criminal
law to operate in tho territory thus
recognized by the sovereignty of the
United States, than they had to pass
II law to operate in the territory OF
her sister States,
1t tis by no means clear to my mind
tina this law now under consideration,
cOvers or includes the case at bar
1t certainly does not use very apt or
precise language to reach it, Conn.
sci for the State alluded TO certain
proposed and rejected amendments to
the law, TO show the motives opera.
ting npon the legislative mind in its
passage. Courts, in the iGterpreta-
tion of laws, cannot look into or scan
the motives which induced their en-
actment, unless they tend to o proper
sustainment OF the law itself think
the true Interpretation, according to
the legal carOns Of construction to DO
put upon the word "ahthority," as
used in the 9th section OF this act, is
a proper, legal and Constitutional
authority. 1t is not to be presumed,
judicially at least, that the legislature
intended SO startling a proposition as
to make the mere p,tcate 'oiU Of the
President, the simple violation of tho
individual, law By which the liberty
Of the citizun is to be regulated and
controlled, in despite OF the clear and
explicit guarantees Of the Constitution
in that behalf. If this is q proper
interpretation of this law, then it is
clear to my apprehension that the case
AT bar does not fall within its provis-
ions. Some doubts might also be en-
teItained as to whether the retroactive
provisions of this law, so far as it ap-
plies to criminal prosecutions, are to
be sustained as valid and obligatory.
TO that extent it is an er post r;irio
lIw: and if sought to be applied IT, or
against the petitioner would lik~rf
be pronounced unconstitutional and
void. Whether this is a proposition
Of mutual right, as between the State
and The petitioner, is a point never
raised or decided withiu my recollec-
ton. There is another most remalk.
aolo want OF mutually in this law,
even in cases Of civil jurisdiction as
between individuals, that, in my
opinion, makss it void. In civil
suit between A aud B, for damages.
B at any time after entering his ap-
poarancc to the action, upoufling his
petition in the State Court, stating
that in the act complained OF, he acted
under color Of authority derived from
the President, may have the case
transferred to the Circuit Comt of
the United States and yet A has no
such right under tEis law, until after
judgment shall have been rendered in
the action pending in the State court.
But apart from those questions of
doubt, what are the facts and legal
questions in the case at bar, which
render this law unconstitutional, il
intended to be applied to such caseg
The plain statement of the case is
this The Constitution of tae State of
Ohio provides that mo person shall
bG transported out Of the State for
any ctitnse committed within tho
same A law OF the State makes it
II chime to "kidnap or itrcibly or
lraudulently carry off or dccoy out Of
THIS State any whit9 person or per-
SONS" This provision in our State
Constitution, and this statute in pur.
suance thereof is the supreme law of
the case at bar, and of the present
motion Of the petitioner, unless there
is some provision in the constitution
Ct the United States which overcomes
and subordirates the State constitu-
ton upon the very question OF the
Iorcible or fraudulent deportation OF a
citizen from one State into another.
A careful examination of the provis-
ions of the national constitution salts.
fies my mind there is no such antag-
onism. on the contrary, the two con-
stitutions are in clear and express
harmony with each other upon this
subject. Ii this is 50, then the order
of the President, ender date of Aug.
2, 1862, for the forcible transportation
Of OIds into the State Of Now York
was unconstitutional, and therefore
utterly null and void. and the peti.
tiouer at the bar can claim no protec-
tion under it. if am right in this
construction Of the national and state
constitutions, IN pa,j materia then
it also follows as All inevitable conclu-
o;O, fhot thio o,u ,,f Eopnraas -