The Lancaster gazette. [volume] (Lancaster, Ohio) 1863-1886, 1866-04-05

ecutlon OF tneir Judgments, eoutu D(
brought before other tribunals and
there subjected 10 fine and iipprison
ment for the performance of the du
ties which such State laws may i'm
pose. or q
J The legislation thus proposed in
vades the judicial power of the State
Itsays to every State court or Judge
it you decide that.this act is unconsti
tutional; ifyou refuse, under the pro
hibition Of State law, to allow q ne.
gro 10 testifyi if you hold that over
such subject matter the State law is par.
amount and under color Of a State, and
refuse the exercise of the right to the
negro. your error ofjudgment, howey.
or conscious, shall subject you to fihs
andiimprisonment. / do not appre.
bend that the conflicting Legislation
which the bill seems to contemplate
is so'likely tooccnr as rehdefit nee.
essary at thistime to adopt measure
ofsuch doubtful constitutionaIity. In
the next place this provision Of tho
bill seems to be unnecessary, as ado
quate judicialrcmedies could be adopt.
ed to secure the desired end, without
invading the immunites of Legislators,
always important to be preserved in
the interest of public liberty, without
assaIliDg the independence OF the iu.
dietary; always essential to the pres.
ervation Of individualrights, and with.
out impairing the efficiency of minis.
terial officers, always necessary for the
maintenance of public peace and or
der. Syf ti lji it8It7 ,iui ~. ie m"9da
The remedy proposed by this Sec
tion seems to boin this respect not on.
Iy anomalous but unconstitutional; for
the Constitution guarantees nothing
with certainty if it does not insure 70
the several States the right Of making
individual lawsin regard 10 all mat.
lers arising within their jurisdiction,
subject only to hereconstriction that in
case ofconflict with the Constitution &
CONSTITUTIONAL laws ofthe United States,
the latter to be held as the supreme
law Of the land. ii NG31 ! f7lYs
The third section gives the District
Court of the United States exclusive
cogniSance ofall crimes and offenses
committed against the provisions of
Il is act, and concurrent jurisdiction
withithe Circuit Courts Of the United
States of all civil and criminal cases
affecting persons who are denied, or
cannot enforcein the courts orjudicial
tribunals of thcState orlocality where
they may be any of the rights secured
to them by the first section. The con.
struction which /, have given to the
second section of it makes clear what
kind Of denial or deprivation of rights
secured by the first section, was it
contemplation. 1t is a denial or dc.
privation OF such rights in the courts
or judicial tribunals of the State; it
stands, therefore, clear of doubt that
the offonse and the penalties provided
in the second section are intended for
the State Judge, who, in the clear ex.
ercise of his functions as a Judge not
acting ministerially but judi,ially
sh.ll decide contrary to this Federal
law. In other words, when q State
judge, acting upon question involv-
ing a conflict between State law and
a Federal law, and bound according
TO his own judgment and responsible
ty TO give an impartial decision be.
tween the two, comes to the conclusion
that the State law is valid and the Fed
eral law is invalid, he ~ ust not follow
the dictates of his own judgment at
the peril of fine and imprisonment
The legislative department Of the
government OF the United States thus
takes from the judicial department Of
the States the sacred and exclusive
duty of judicial decision. and con-
verts the State Judge into mere min.
isterial officer, bound TO decide accor.
ding to the will of Congress.
1t is clear that in States which
deny to persons whose rights are Sc
cured by the first section OF the bill
any one of these rights, all criminal
and civil cases affecting them will by
the provisions of the third section,
come under the exclusive cognizanco
of the federal tribunals. 1t follows
that if, in any State which denies to a
colored person any one Of all these
rights, if that person should commit a
crime against the laws of the State,
murder or any other crime, all pro-
lection and punishment through the
laws of the State are taken away,
and be can only be tried and punished
in tho Federal courts. How is the
criminal to be tried? Ifthe offense IS
provided for and punished by federal
law, that law, and not the State law,
is to govern. 1t is only when the Of.
fensc does not happen to be within the
purview of federal law, that the feder.
al courts are TO try and punish him
under any other law. Then resort is to
be had to the common law as modifi-
cd and changed by State legislation,
SO far as the same is not inconsistent
with the Constitution and laws of the
United States; so that over this vast
domain of criminal jurisprudence pro-
vided by each State for the protection
of its own citizens, and for the pun
ishment OF all persons who violate its
criminal laws, the Federal law, when
ever it can be made to apply, displaces
State law. The question here natural
ly arises; from what source Congress
derives the power to transfer to fed
eral tribunals, certain classes Of cases