The Vinton record. [volume] (M'arthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1866-1891, 1866-03-29

you hold that on every such sub
ject matter said law is paramount,
and under color of a State law, re-
fuse the. exercise Of the right to
the negro, your error of judgement,
however conscious, shall subject
you to fine and imprisonment. /
do not apprehend that 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
doubtful constitutionality.
In the next place, this provision
Of the bill seems to be unnecessa-
ry, as adequate judicial remedies
could be adopted to secure the de-
sired end without invading the i'm
munities of legislators, always i'm
portant to be preserved in the in
terest Of public liberty; without
assailing the independence of the
judiciary, always essential to the
preservation of individual rights,
and without impairing the eficien-
cy of ministerial officers, always
ready for the maintenance of pub
lie peace and order. The remedy
proposed by this section seems to
be, in this respect, not only Rnom-
alous, but unconstitutional, for the
Constitution guarantees nothing
with certainty, ifit does not insure
to the several States the right of
making laws in regard to all mat
ters arising within their jurisdic-
ton, subject only to reconstruction
in cases of conflict with the Consti-
tuition and Constitutional laws of
the United States, the latter to be
held as the supreme law Of the
land.
The third section gives the Dis
trict Courts Of the United States
exclusive cognizance of eli crimes
and oAenses committed against the
provisions Of this act, and concur
rent jurisdiction with the circuit
Courts CT the United States of all
the civil and crioiinal cases affect
ing persons who are denied, or can
not enforce in the courts or judi
cial tribunal Of the State or locali-
ty where they may be, any OF the
rights secured to them by the first
section. The construction which
have given to the second section,
for it makes clear what kind CT de
NAL or deprivation of rights socur-
ed by the first section was in con-
temptation, is a denial or dopriya-
ton Of such rights IN the courts Oh
judicial tribunals Of The State. 1t
stands there clear CT doubt that the
olTense end the penalties provided |
in the second section are intended |
for the State judge who, in the |
clear exercise Of his functions as
jc3ge, not acting rlinisterially but
udicially, shall decide contrary to
his Federal law. In other words,
when a State judge acting upon q
question involving a conflict bo-
.ween Stale law and a Federal
aw, and bound according to his
'En judgment and responsibility,
o give an impartial decision be.
ween the two cases, comes to the
conclusion that the State law ia
'alid and the Federal law is in.
'alid, he must not follow the die
ates of his own judgement, at tho
leril Of fine and imprisonment
The Legislative department Of the
Government of TIE United States
aiken from the judicial departments
If the States the sacred and exclu-
i've duty Of a judicial decision, and
converts the States Judge into a
merely ministerial officer, bound to
lecide according to the will of Con-
,ress. It lies clear that in States
which deny to persons whose rights
ire secured by the first section cf
he bill, any one of these rights, all
and civil, affecting them,
will, by the provisions of the third
ection come under the Executive
of the Federal tribu-
lals. Itfollows that it, in any State
which ,denies to a colore1 person
my one or all of those rights, that
person should commit a crime
lgainst the laws of the State, mur-
ler or any other crime, all protec-
ion and punishment through the
courts Of the State are taken away
md he can only be tried and pun
shed in the Federal courts. How
S the criminal to be tried if the Of
ense is provided for and punished
1y Federal law? That law, and
lot the State law, is to govern. 1t
s only when the olfense does not
happen to be within the purview of
federal law that the Federal courts
ire to try and punish him, under