The Ebensburg Alleghanian. [volume] (Ebensburg, Pa.) 1865-1871, 1866-04-05

courts who should render judgments in
antagonism with its terms; and that mar.
shals and sherifs, who should, as minis.
terlai officers, execute processes, sanction.
ed 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 imprison.
ment tor the performance of the duties
which such State laws might impose.
The Legislation thus proposed invades
the judicial power of the State. 1t says
10 every State court or judge, if you decide
that this act is unconstitutional, if you
refuse, under the prohibition of a State
law, to allow negro to testify, if you hold
that over such subject matter the State
law Is paramount, and "under color" of a
State law refuse the exercise of the right
to the negro, your error of judgment,
However conscientious, shall subject you
to line and imprisonment | do not ap.
prehend that the conflicting legislation
which the bill seems to contemplate is so
hkely to occur as to render it necessary
at this time to adopt measure Of such
doubtful coustitutionality.
La 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 .avadino
the immunities of legislators, always im-
portant to be preserved in the interests of
public liberty; without assailing the inde-
rendence of the judiciary, always essential
to the preservation of individual rights,
and without impairing the efficiency of
ministerial officers, always necessary for
the maintenance of public peace aid order.
The remedy proposed by this section
seems to be, in this respect, not only
anomalous but unconstitutional for the
Constitution guarantees nothing with
certainty if it does lot insure to the sew
eral States the right of making and exc
cutting laws in regard to all matters arisir 9
within their jurisdiction, subject only to
the restriction that in cases of conflict
with the Constitution and constitutional
laws of the United States, the latter
should be held to be the supreme law of
the land
The third section gives the District
Courts of the United States exclusive
"coguizance 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 "affectlng persons
who are denied or cannot enforce 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 to
the second section is strengthened by this
third section, for it makes clear what kind
of denial or deprivation of the rights
secured by the first section was in con-
1t is a denial or deprivation
of such rights ''in the courts or judicial
tribunals OF the State" 1t stands, there
fore, clear of doubt that the offence and
the penalties provided in the section Sec
ond are intended for the State judge, who,
in the clear exercise of his functions as
judge, not acting ministerially, but judi
cialiy, shall decide contrary to this Fed
eral law. In other words, when a State
Judge, acting upon question involving
conflict between State law and Federal
aw, and bound, according to his own
Judgment and responsibility, to give an
IMPARTIAL decision between the two, comes
% the conclusion that the State law is
7alid and the Federal law is invalid, he
must not fellow the dictates cf his own
udgnent at the peril of fine and impris- |
'nment The legislative department Of
he Government Of the United States thus |
axes from the judicial department of the /
states the sacred and exclusive duty of |
judicial decision, and converts the State |
udge into mere ministerial officer bound |
0 decide according to the will of Congress.
1t is clear that in States which deny to
'ersons whose rights are secured by The
rst section of the hill any one of these
lights, all criminal and civil cases affect
lg them will, by the provisions of the
bird section, come under the exclusive
cgnizance of the Federal tribunals. 1t
blows that it, in any State which denies
} colored person any one of all these
ghts, that person should commit a crime
gainst the laws of the State, murder,
rson, rape, or any other crime, all pro-
'ction and punishment through the laws
the State are taken away, and he can
My be tried and punished in the Federal
1urts. How is the criminal to be tried
the offence is provided for and punished
7 Federal law, that lay, and not the
tate law, is to govern.
1t is only when the offence docs not
ap2en to be within the purview of Fed {
al law that the Federal courts are to try
Id punish him under any other law
hen resort is to be had to "the common
W, as modified and changed" by State
gislation, $50 far as the same is not
consistent with the Constitution and (
VS. of the United States" So that over s
is vast domain of criminal jurisprudence ;
divided by each State for the protection ;
It's own citizens, and for the punishment