Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1866-04-05

provisions of the bill, that judges of the
State courts who should render judgments
in antasonism with its terms, aud that
marshals and sheriffs who should, as minis
terial officers, execute processes sanctioned
by State laws and issued by State Judges in
execution of their judgements, could be
brought before other tribunals and there
subjected to fine aud Imprisonment for the
performance of the duties which such State
laws might impose.
The legislation thus proposed invades
the judicial power of the State. 1t says to
every State Court or Judge, if You decide
that this act is upconstitutioual-if you re-
fuse, under the prohibition of State law
to allow q negro to testify if you hold that
over such subject matter the State law IS
paramount, aud "uuder color" of State
law refuse the exercise of the right to the ne
gro-your error of judgement, however con.
scientious, shall subject you to fine and i'm.
prisonment! l do not apprehend that the
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 consttutionality.
In the next place, this provision of the
bill seems to be unnecessary, as adequate
judicial remedies could be adopted to Sc
cure the desired end, without invading the
immuuities of legislators: always important
to be preserved in the Interests of public
liberty without assailing the independence
of the judiciary, always essential to the
preservation of individual rights; and with
out impairing the efficiency of ministerial
officers, always necessary for the mainten-
ence of public peace and order. The RENE
dy proposed by this section seems to be, in
this respect, not only anomalous but uncon'
stitutional, for the Constitution guarantees
nothing with certainty, if it does not insure
to the several States the right of 'uaking
and executing laws in regard to all matters
arising within their Jurisdiction, subject on
" 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 "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
"afecting 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 l
have given to the second section is strength.
ened by this third section, for it makes clear
what kind of denial or deprivation OF the
rights secured by the first section was IN
contemplation. 1t is a denial OF depriVa'
tion of such rights 'iu the courts or judi
cial tribunals of the State" 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 exercise of his functions
as a Judge, not acting ministerially, but
judicially, shall decide contrary to this Fed
eral law. In other words, when State
Judge, acting upon question involving
conflict between State law and Federal
law, and bound according to his own judg'
ment and responsibility, 10 give an impair
tial decision between the two, comes to the
conclusion that the State law is valid and
the Federal law is invalid, he must not fol-
low the dictates of bis own judgment, at
the peril of fine and imprisonment, The
legislative department of the Government
of the United States thus takes frou the
judicial department. Of the States the sacred
and exclusive duty of judicial decision, and
converts the State Judge into mere min
isterial officer, bound to decide according
to the will of Congress.
1t is clear that in States which deny to
persons whose rights are secured blythe trst
section of the bill any one of those rights, all
criminal and civil cases affecting them will,
by the provisions of the third section, come
under the exclusive cogpizauce of the Fed
eral tribunals 1t follows that it, 10 any
State which denies to colored person any
one of all those rights, that person should
commit crime against the laws of the State
murder, arson, rape, or any other crime
all protection and punishment through
the courts of the State are taken away, and
he can only be tried and punished in the
Federal courts. How is criminal to be
tried? If the offence is provided for aud
punished by Federal law, that law, and not
the State law, is to govern.
1t is only when the offence does not hap
pen to be within the purview of Federal
law that the Federal courts are to try and
punish him under any other law. Then
resort is to be had to "the common law, as
modified and changed" by State Legislation,
$50 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 provided by each
State for the protection of its own citizens,
and for the punishment of all persons who
violate its criminal laws, Federal law, where
ever it can be made to apply, displsces State
law.
The question here naturally arises, from
what source Congress derives the power to
transfer to Federal tribunals certain classes
Il. ho