Delaware State journal and statesman., 1867-12-06

not discharge the party when once duly
convicted.
But how are we to arrive Mt the true H.
depreciation Of n constitutional provision
In The first place, we must consider the end
proposed to be accomplished by IL and In
considering this, we must give to the words
used just such operation and force, and no
more, as is consistent with their Legitimate
meaning, as applied 10 the subject matter
about which they treat. Now is perfectly
manifest that the end proposed, was the
abolition and eXtirpAton of slavery, within
the States and Territories OF the United
States. And ii seems to me, TO be equally
clear, that the second section was intended
to confer upon Congress power, by appro-
pirate legislation, TO vest in the Federal
courts, just such Jurisdiction and authority
as might be found necessary or proper fur
carrying into effect the end proposed by the
first section of the amendment. Fol il must
be borno IN mind that there is nothing in
the amendment that can he construed TO re-
fer 10 State Courts. And we must nlso re-
member that Federal laws must be enforced
by, or through the inslrumentality of, the
Federal judiciary.
Whatever legislation, therefore, may be
necessary or proper, TO cXtingulsh slRyory
or involuntary servitnde, or TO prevent re-
sraint Of, or interference with, personal
liberty, is clearly within the power of Com
gress. And Congress may very properly
regulate the mode of proceeding,- the com
potency OF witnesses,-the nature and char
meter Of evidence TO be admitted, and all
other matters touching the trial of cases, or
the administration of justice in the Federal
Courts, or before Judicial officers of the
United States. And for any illegal inter
ference with, or restraint of personal liberty,
Congress has power 10 provide nm appropriate
NJ, ~ To In a tr.ts lttr
the Federal Judiciary.
Every ono knows, who is NJ all familiar
with the subject, that the appellate junsdic-
tion OF the United States, as al present exer-
ciscd, IS very comprehensive indeed. 1t
extends TO all cases arising under the Con-
stitution, and the laws of the United States
-or where the validity, or construction OF
the Constitution, or law OF the United
States, is drawn in question. And a case
may be said 10 have arisen, under the Con-
stitutiOn, or law of the United States.
whenever its correct decision depends upon
the true construction of either. And ne
| Congress, is imperatiVely required to vest
the whole judicial power of the United
States, in Supreme Court, and such inferior
Courts, as il shall ordain and establish, II
has power TO provide for the exercise of tlu
appellate jurisdiction, in such form us may
be deemed proper-the manner or mode ol
removal, being mere form and not substance
1t may be by writ of error, appeal, or TO
moyal on petition, or in such other form ns
Congress may s0e ft TO prescribe But
whether, under the appellate power, Con.
gress has made any provision, or can make
any provision, for the removal of n case like
this, are questions which we are not called
upon TO decide.
The Constitution, and the laws OF til,
United States, which shall be made in pur
suance thereof, are the supreme law of III,
land, and as such, are binding on all III,
Judges of every State, anything in the Con
sttution or laws of any State, To the con
trary Notwithstanding. But the law 10 h,
binding, must he made an pursuance of III
t Constitutions; that is TO say, it must be
Constitutional law All unconstitullOnn
law, is u mere nuIlity.
The question presented here is naket
, question of power. The Statute law OF thi
Slate excludes negroes nom being witnesses
except under certain circumstances. tn
, Civil Rights Bill OF Congress, in effect, de
, clnres that they shall have u right to xiv
/ evidence, in all cases In which white pei
son is competent to testify; and il is cor
1 tended that the Act of Congress operates #
+ repeal OF the Statute law ui this Stat
6 which excludes them, and is binding on th
Court. | do not think so. Think Congre,
q has exceeded its power. | am therefore {
= opinion, that In so far as tile Civil Riglt
Y Bill assumes to compel, regulate, or conrI
1 the admission of evidence in The Courts
this State, 1t is imperative, unconstiiutiona
II and void.
:, n The TACT that the negro man called as
Il witness was tho person on whom the Ossuu
], aud battery had been committed havir
a como TO the knowledge of the Court, Il
:, Chief Justice, remarked that his tcslimor
p was admissible under the rulings of II
Court, on the ground of humanity and II
y cessty, although there was white witne
=, present, and he referred to tho case of Il
u State against Whitaker
~ Mr. Cnmegys said lie was not aware Il
A rulings had gone to that extent that If
d had been he should not hive raised the que
If tiOn.
ia The CHIEF JUSTICE replied that the n
., missbility of negro testimony wms rails,
on the case ot the State against Whltake
y, for kidnapping, tried In Kant County in 81
Ia year 1S40 and also, in two other cases, ol
p, against Griffin, for kidnapping, and Il
i, other against Cooper, for an assault al
, battery He stated TINT in those cases cor
~, petenl white witnesses were present; III
Of although, iu the cases Of Whitaker al
,o Griffin, the white persons present we
rs participants in lhe crime, yet they we
.. competent witnesses,-and that in VIII
~ aker's case an accomplice, named Day
> Walton, was actually examined Tor the Stat
and yet the kidnapped negro boy, Willia
o. Clurkson, was held to be II competent W
j. moss in the case; and that ever since tho
y cases, it had been the practice Of the Cor
u, 10 allow tho negro OH whom the offence HI
10 been committed TO testify.
" JUDGE WooTTEN coneurred with The CHI
hs Justice, in regard to the Civil Rights Bi
le and also, as TO the competency OF the W
81 ness on the giouud Of humanity and ncct
@ @es sity.
IN JUDGE WALES said that lie was unable
y, concur with the views of the Chief Justit
" and was therefore compelled TO dissent frc
~ the opinion of the majority OF the Court
g. the c0nstitutouality of the Civil Rights A,
10 He was inclined 10 believe that the Act W
e, valid, and this belief was strengthened
~ recent decisions ON this question, some
~ which had been made by Judges OF /
~ United States Supreme Court. PerhaI
W. after fuller argument and consideration,
u might think differently. But he agreed wi
w the Court that the witness should be d
W. mited for the reasons stated by the Ch
w Justice.
re- BRITISH PERIODICALS.
ns M AopunO,,ia En,Nn-nc,, AI.s......-