The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1866-04-04

} Itka State judiciary or tie State Legisla.
ture. 5.Itis therefore sssumed that un.
del this section members Of State Lesis!
latures who should vote for laws conflict.
ing with the provisions Of the bill, that
Jddgesof the State Courts who should
render judgements ~ aptagonism with I'll
terms, and that Maishplsand Sheriffs who
) should, si&ihisterials fs, execute pro
csss sanctioned bfsSts avs and issued
BY Sstste 5ads - vSsAadon oftheii
judgments, could be brought before 9th
er tribunals and there subjected to fine
and Imprisonment for the performance Of
the duties which such State laws might
impose. The legislation thus proposed
invades the judicial power Of the
States, It says to every STAGE, Court or
Judge, If you decide that this act is un.
unconstitutional, If you refuse, under the
prohibition Of a State, to allow a negro to
testify, if you hold that over a subject
matter, the State law is paramount, and
under color Of a Seate law, refuse the ex.
erciso Of the right to the negro, your
Judgment, however conscientious, Shall
subject you to fine and Imprisonment.
4 do not apprehend that the conflicting
legislation which the bill seems to con.
template is SO likely TO occur as to rem.
der il necessary at this time to ADOPT a
measure 70 such doubtful constitutional
ty. In the next place, this provision Of
the bill seems to be unnecessary, ade-
quate judicial remedies could be adopted
to secure the desired end without inva-
ding the immuuities of Legislators, al.
ways important Ito be preserved in the
interest Of public liberty; without assailing
the Independence Of the Judiciary, always
essential to ihe preservation Of indivi dual
rights, and without impairing the eficien-
cy Of ministerial officers, always necessa.
| ry for the maintenance Of public peace
land order. Colt
The remedy proposed by this--section
seems to be in this respect not only anon.
alous but unconstitutional, for the Con
stitution guarantees nothing with certain.
lty if it does not ensure 10 the several
States the right Of making laws in regard
to all matters arising within their juris-
diction, subject only to the Constitution
and Conitutional'' laws Of the United
States, the latterto be held as the. su-
preme law OF the land.
The third section gives the District
Courts Of the United State exclusively
coguizance of allcrimes and offences com.
mitted 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, or cannot enforce in
courts or Judicial tribunals of the State.
or'lacality where they may be, any Of the,
rights secured to them by the lst section.
The construction which L have given to
the second section makes clear what kind
Of denial or deprivation of rights secur-
ed by the first section was in contemplay
ton; it is denial or deprivation Of such
rights in the courts of judicial tribunals
of the State. 1t stands therefore clear
of doubt that the offense and penalties
provided in the second section, are in.
tended for the State Judge, not acting
ministerially but judicially, shall decide
contrary to this federal LAWN other
words, when, State Judge, acting upo n
a question involving a conflict between
"a State law and this federal law, and
bound according TO his own judgment
and responsibility, to give an impartial
decision between the two, comes to the
conclusion that the State law is valid and
the federal law is invalid-he must not
follow the dictates of his own judgment
at the peril of fine and Imprisonment
The legislative department Of the Govern.
ment thus takes from the judicial depart
mcnt of the States she sacred and excu.
siye duty of judicial decision, and con,
verts the State Judge into mere minis,
terial officer, bound to decide according
to the will of Congress. 1t is clear that
in States which deny to persons whose
rights are secured by the first section of
tho bill, any one of those rights all civil
cases affecting them, will by the provi-
fsiops of the third section, come under the
exclusive cognizance of the Federal tri-
bunals. 1t follows that If in apy State
that denies to a colored person any one
Of, all those rights, that person should
commit q crime against tho laws Of, the
lState-murder or any other crine--all
projection md punishment, through
the Courts Of the State are taken away,
and he can only be tried and pun
isbsdsin the, Federal courts, How is the
criminal to be tried2 IL the offense is |
provided for by the Federal law, that law
and not the State law is to govern. II
is is only when the oiTense does not hap.
IppTto Ibswhhin theJpYrvieN Of the Fsdyl
ersl iaW thitl tho Federal jSohfts arS ID
Try ana punish Him under any 'otheF INV.
Then resort is TO be had to the common
law is far, as modified and changed BY
State legislation, So far as the same is not
inconsistent with the Constitution and 4
laws of the United Stat6s ; SO that yoyifi
this vast domain in which crimipalipis1
prudence is provided by each S(ate for
the protection Of its own citizens, and for
the punishment Of all-pcrs0ns who vio-
late its criminal laws 6edstallsw, whorev-
eg j. canbe, made toapplysdlsplacos State
law. The question here naturally arises
fran, ,5t,dt cauIne Qdhorseu lderivod ithail