Baltimore daily commercial. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1865-1867, 1866-03-28


of the State Legislatures who should vote for laws
conflicting with the provisions of the BILL that judges
of the State courts who should render judgments in
antagonlsm with Its TERMS and that marshals and
sherifs, who should ministerial officers, execute
processes, sanctioned by State laws and issued by
State judges in execution Of their judgments could
be brought before other tribunals and there subjected
to fine and Imprisonment for the performance of the
duties which such State laws might impose.
The legislation thus proposed lnvades the judicial
power OF the State. 1t says to every State court or
judge, if you decide that this act is unconstitutional
you refuse, under the prohibition of State law,
allow negro to testify, if you hold that over such
subject-matter the State law is paramount, and un
der color" of State law refuse the exercise of the
right to the negro, your error OF Judgment however
conscientious, shall subject sou to fine and imprison
menti do not apprehend that the conflicting legis
likely to to render it necessary this time to
adopt measure of such doubtful constitutionality
In the next place. this provision of the bill seems
TO be unnecessary, as adequate judicial remedies
could be adopted to secure the desired end, without
invading the immunitles of legislators, always i'm
erty without assailing the independence of the judi
GARY, always essential to the preservation of indi-
vidual rights, and without imparing abe efficiency
OF ministerial ocers, always necessary for the main
tenanee OF public peace and order. The remedy pro-
posed by this section seems to be- in this respect not
only anomalous but unconstitutional; for the Consti
tuition guarantees nothing with certainty if it does
not insure to the several States the right of making
and executing laws regard to all matters arising
within their Jurisdiction subject only to the restrc
ton that IN cases of conflict with the Constitution
and constitutional laws of the United States the LAT
ter should be held to be the supreme law of the land
The third section gives the District Courts of the
United States exclusive cOgnizance of all crimes
and offences committed against The provisions Of this
act" and concurrent jurisdiction with the Circuit
Courts of the United States of all civil and criminal
cases affecting persons who are denied o. cannot
force in the courts judicial tribunals of the State
or locality where they may be any of the rights Sc
cured to them by the first section The construction
which have given to the second section is strength
ened by this third section for it makes clear what
kind of denial deprivation of the rights secured
by the first section was in contemplation It is de-
or q ne Or
judicial tribunals of the S ate.''
1t stands therefore clear Of doubt that the offence
and the penalties provided in the second section are
intended for the State Judge who in the clear exer-
else of his functions Judge, not acting minis
teriay, but judicially, shall decide contrary to this
Federal law. In other words. when a State Judge,
acting upon question involving conflict between
State law and Federal law, and bound, according
to his own judgment and responsibility. to give an
Impartial decision betW cen the two comes to the
conclusion that the State law is valid and the Fed
eral law is invalid he must not follow the dictates of
his own Judgment at the peril of fine and imprson-
ment. The Legislative Department of the Govern
ment OF the United States thus takes from the Judi.