The Democratic advocate. [volume] (Westminster, Md.) 1865-1972, 1866-04-05

error OF Judgment, however conscien-
tious, shall subject you to a fine and
imprisonment. [ do not apprehend that
the conflicting legislation, which the
bill seems to contemplate, is so likely to
occur as to render it necessary at this
time to adopt measure of such doubt
ful constitutionality.
In the next place, this provision of
the bill seems to be unnecessary, as sd-
equate judicial remedies could be adop-
ted TO secure the desired end, without
invading the immunities of Legislators,
always important to bepreserved in the
interest of public liberty, without as
sailing the independence Of the judiciary
always essential to the preservation Of
individual rights, and without Impair
ing the efficiency of ministerial officers,
always necessary for the maintenance
OF putlie peace and order. The reme-
dy proposed by this seeciou seems to be
In this respect, not only anomalous but
unconstitutional; for the Constitution
! guarantees nothing with certainty, if it
/ does not insure to the several States the
/ right Of making and executing laws in
regard to all matters within their jur-
isdiction, subject only TO the restriction
that in cases Of conflict with the Con-
stituiiou aud constitutional laws Of the
. United States, the latter should be
held 10 be tic supreme law Of the
land.
The tArd section gives the District
Courts o. ,he United States exclusive
'cOgulzancc Of al crimes and offences
committed against the provisions ofths
1ct, aud concurrent Jurisdiction with
the Circuit Courts Of the United States
Of all civil and criminal cases affecting
persons who are denied or cannot en-
force in the courts or judicial tribunals
Of the State or locality where they may
be any Of the rights secured to them by
the FIRST section" The construction
which have given 10 the second sec
ton is strengthened BY this third sec
ton, for II makes clear what kind Of de-
nial or deprivation Of rights secured by
the first section was in contemplation.
II is denial or deprivation Of such
rights in the courts or judicial tribu-
nals Of the States 1t stands, there
fore, clear Of doubt that the offence aud
the penalties provided in the second sec
tion are intended for the State Judge,
who, in the clear exercise of his func-
tiona as Judge not acting ministerial.
y, but judIcially, shall decide contrary
20 this Federal law Ia other words,
when o stateJudso acting upon ques-
ton involving conflict between State
law and o Federal law, and bound, ac-
cordiug 10 his own judgment and res
possibility, TO gycau impartial decision
between the two, comes to the consul
sion that the State law is valid and the
Federal hw is invalid, he must not fol-
low the dictates OF Ais own Judgment at
the peril Of fue and inprisoument.--
The Legislative Department Of the Gov
erumgut Of the United States thus takes
FROM the judicial department of the
States the sacred and exclusive duty Of
Judicial decision, and conycrtsthe State
Judge into mere ministerial officer
bound to decide according to the will Of
Congress.
1t j. cloar that in States which deny
10 persons whose rights are secured BY
the first section Of the bill any one Of
those rights, al, criminal aud civil cases
Affecting them, Will, by the provisions
oi the third section, cumc under the ox-
elusive cognaucc af the Federal tribu.
nals. It follows that if. in auy State
which denies 10 a colored person any
OF sll those rights, that person should
commit "a crime against the laws of the
State murder, arson, rape, or any other
crime, Oh protection aud punishment
through tho laws Of the State are taken
away, aud he can only be tried and pun
iahgd 10 the Federal courts How is
the criminal to be tried If the offence
is provided for and punished by Fedo.
raj law, aud not the State law, is to
govern
II is ouly when the offence does not
happen to be within the puryiew of Fed
eral law that the Fed,ral courts are to
Try and punish him under any other law.
Then resort is 10 be had to "the common
law, as modified aud changed by State
legislation, $50 far as the same is not
inconsitent with the Constitution and
laws Of tie United States" So that
over this vast domain Of criminal juris-
prudence provided By each State for the
protection Of its own citizens, and for
the punishment Of all persons who VIC.
bate its criminal laws, Federal law,
wherever it can be made to apply, dis
places State law
The question here naturally arises,
from what source Congress derives the
power to transfer to Federal tribunals
certain classes Of cases embraced in this
section The Constitution expressly
declares that the judicial power Of the
United States shall extend to all cases
in law aud equity arising under this
Constitution, the laws OF the United
States and treaties made, or which shall
be made under their authority; 10 all
cases affecting ambassadors, other pub
lie ministers and consuls; to all cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to
controversies to which the United States
shall he party; to controversies be-
tween two or more States, between a
State and citizens of another State, be-
tween citizens Of different States, be-
tween citizens of the same State claim
ing land under grants OF different States,
and between State, or the citizens
or subjects"
Here the judicial power of the United