Daily Davenport Democrat. [volume] (Davenport, Iowa) 1864-1874, 1866-03-29

~ suhu - A sSu - S04V0DW00DmS
u white perSons, shall b deemed guiltv 81
punished by . fine not exceeding o. thou.
and dollAfsy or imprieooment noe exceedlne
me year, or both. In the discsetioa Of The
;ourt. This section eeeme to - dscigned 70
lpply to some existing or future law Of |
State or Territory which may conflict with
he provisions Of the bill nov under con.
'ideration. It provides for countesacting
'uch forbidden legislation BY imposing fine |
and imprisonment upon the Legislator who |
may pass ouch conflicting laws, or upon the /
officers or agents who shall put. or attempt |
10 put, them into executions. It means On |
efncial Cliense, not co00oa crime CON.
mitted against Law. upon The psro0n or prop
csty Of the black race. ouch an ~ may d. |
prive the black men Of hi pfopesty, bat no
Of his right - bold pfopesty. Ittnsans che |
deprivation Of the right itself. either BY tAe
State Judiciary or the State Legislature. n |
Is, therefore, assumed that under this section |
Of State Legislature, who should |
vote for laws conflicting with the PROVISIONS |
Of the bill, that JUICES Of the State Courts |
who should render Judgments In antagon- |
ism with it, terms and that 1narshals and
sheriffs, who should, - uninterested officers,
execute, processes sanctioned by State laws.
and issued by State Judges, 10 execution Of
their judgments, could be brought before
other tribunals, and there subjected to fine
and imprisonment for the performance ri
the duties which such State laws might i'm.
pose.
The legislation thus proposed invades the
judicial power Of the State. 1t says TO every
State Court or Judge. IF you decide that
under the prohibition of State law, to allow
q negro to testify; IL you hold that over such
q subjes4.inatter the said law II paramount
under color of State law and refuse the
exercise Of the right to the negro, your error
Of judgment, however conscientious, shall
8 inject you to fine aud imprisonment" l
do not apprcheod that conflicting legislation,
which the bill seems to contemplate, is 50
likely u occur as to render il necessary at
this time to adopt measure of such doubt
full constitutiOnality. In the next place, this
provision Of the bill seems to he unnecessary,
as adequate judicial remedies could be adopt
ed to secure the desired effect, and without
invading the immunities Of legislators, al
was important TO Ike preserved in the inter
est 1. public liberty, without assailing the
'erendcncc of the judiciary always essen
iial to the preservation Of individual rights,
and without impairing the efficiency of min
istcrial officers; always necessary for the
maintenance Of public pcace and order The
| remedy proposed by this seems to be. in this
respect not only anomalous, but uncOnsti.
tu,ional, for the Constitution guarantees
| nothing with certainty il it does not insure
to the several States the right of making
| their own laws in regard to all matters arts
| ing within their jurisdiction, subject only TO
reconstruction in cases of conflict with the
Constitution and constitutional laws of the
United States, the latter to I've held as the
/ ln,r x.T t1.o 1onI
The third section gives tbs District Cour
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 tie
United States of all civil and criminal cases
affecting 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 rightAsecured TO them ~ the first sec
ton. The construction which have given
to the second section makes it clear what
kind of denial or deprivation Of rights secu-
| red b. the first section was in contemplation.
1t is IA denial OF deprivation OF such rights in
the courts or judicial tribunals OF tho State.
1t stands, therefore, Gear Of doubt. that the
offences ana the penalties provided in the
sccond section, arc intended t.r the State
Judge, who in the clear exercise of his iunc
tons as Judge, not acting Enthusiastically but
juJicialy, shall decide contrary TO this Fed
eral law; in other words, when State
Judge, acting upon 4 question involving Il
conflict between State law and Federal law
and bound, according his own Judgment. and
responsibility. to give an impartia! decision
between the two cOurses to tile conclusion
that the State law Is valid. and the Federal
Inv is invalid, he must not follow the dictate
of his own Judgment, at the peril OF fine and
Of the Government Of the United States thus
takes from the judicial departures Of the
States the sacred and exclusive duty OF in.
dicial decision, and converts the State iud e
into Il mere ministerial officer, bound to dc.
eide according to the will of Congress
1t is clesr that in States which deny to
persons whose rights are secured by the first
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 executive cognzancc Of the
Federal tribunals. II follows that il law
which denies to q oolored person any one OF
all those rights, that persons should commit
a crime against the laws Of State,-murdel
or any other crime protection and punish
ment through the courts of the State, are
taken away. and he can only be tried and
punished in the Federal courts, how is the
criminal to be tried if the offence is provided
for and punished by Federal law. That law
and NOT the State law, is to govern il, only
when the offence does not happen to "
within the purview Of Federal law. Tha,
Inc Federal courts are to try aud punish
Tim under any other law, then rCsortisio be
iai TO the common law, as modified and
changed ly Stats legislation so far rs the
same Is not Inconsistent with the Consti,u
II and laws Of the United States, 50 that
Hi IL
dcncc, provide by each State Tor the pro.
to tion Of its own citizens, and for the pun.
ishinent of all persons who violated its
criminal laws. Federal law, wherever it can
be rale to apply, displaces State law
Tit question here naturally arises from
what source Congress derives the power to
transfer to Federal tribunals certain classes
of cases embraced in this section: The
Constitution expressly declares that the ia.
dicial power of the United States shall tx
tend to all cases in law and equity arising
under the Constitution the laws of the
United States and treaties made, or which
shall be made under their authority to all
caseaRNecting ambassadors, or other minis
tiers and consuls; to all cas- $ Of admiral Y
and maratime jurisdiction to controycrsi. :
to which the United States shall be a party !;
to Controversies between two or MOI e
states between 4 State ana citizens nj an
other state; hetwc,n citizens of differ 1
states; between citizens Of the same State
claims Of laal unter grants OF different
! States and between Z Sat- or The cili2ni S
lhcrof and ioreiri. States citizens or sui.
icc;s. Here the judicial power Of the Uni
ed States is expressly set ini;h and defined
',ad the act OF september 9th. 1899. tstat.
lishing the judicial courts of the United
Sts'es, IN comforting upon the Federal
Courts jurisdiction oversees originating ii,
state tribunals, is careful TO confinc them
- ihe c'asscs enumerated in the above
ref'i'"l c'~usr of ~" Constitution. This
section of the bill undoubtedly COM
prehcnds cases, and authorizes the
exercise of powers. that are not by
the Constitution within the jurisdiction Of
the courts Of the United States. To trans.
fe' tlynl 10 these csuts, would be an cxer-
| else ri authority wen alculated to excite
disttust and alarm OH tie part Of all the
states; for Tic bill arpl es alike to all Of
thep.as well IA 10 those tina. have,as to those
that have net been engaged in the rebellion.
|, may be assumed that this authority is in.
citnt To The mower gran: ell IN Cf,n vrees h,,