The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1880-04-16
srArr nIemrs Is rmr cornrs.


While we do not concur with those
Of our Democratic contemporaries Of tbs
Pacific coast who are working up tie
Fields boom for President, We cannot
deny that he Is an able, conscientious
and patriotic .juriat as has recently
been 10 forciLly illustrated in bis dir
aenting opinions in the y. $. Supreme
Court. We have carefully real the
opinion Of Justice Field in the case Of
Virginia OK parte, wherein the State Of
Virginia asks for Il mandamus com
manding tho return Of Lee aud Burwell
Reynolds into tho custody Of her off
GERS, from whom they were taken by an
order Of United States udge Isivcs
The prisoners were negroes, indicted tor
the murder Of white man, and they
demanded mixed jury, which, being
denied them, they asked that their pros
ceution should be removed TO the Fed
eral court. This was denied and they
were tried Judge Rives after the trial,
had these cases removed 20 the Federal
court
The Supreme Court bas decided that
Judge Rivcs was wrong. Bat Justice
Field went furthc,, aud EIs,l a separate
opinion. The Grst part Of the olInior
is not interesting to iia, bat the latter
part il 50 important that wc print it to
the exclusion Of Our editorial ItsbouiI
be useless to say that Nc think Justice
Fields argument unnnswerabie:
"Thc second objection oI' the Com
monwcalth to the legality # the remov-
al il equally conclusive The prosecu-
tion is for the crime OF murder, commit
ted within her limits, by persons and at
a place subject to her jurisdiction. The
offence charged is against l,,'r authority
and laws. aud she alone hrs the right to
inquire into its comWission. aud to pun
inli tho offender. Murder is not an
offence against the United States, except
WHEN committed on All American vessel
on the high seas, or in some port OF
haven without the jurisdiction Of the
State, or in the District OF Columbia or
IN tbs Territories, or Mt other places
where the national Government bas ex-
elusive jurisdiction. The offence within
the limits of State except where juris-
dirtion has Ieon ce,lcd 10 the United
States. i as Inncl, beyond the jurisdic-
tion Of these courts IA tl,uugh it had
been committed on nnotL,-r continent
Tie pros, cnii"i. 81 the ciIeuca ia such
c,se ,loes not therefore, afias, under the
constitution aud laws q; the United
State and thc act Of Congress which
att'.tui'ts 70 give lls Federal courts iur-
isiiolnu "f it Is, to my mind, clear
inirae,ion 81 the constitution. That IN
struinent defines and limits he judicial
power Of the United States.
IL declares, among other things, that
tie judicial power shall extend to cases
in law and equity arising under the son
stitution, laws aud treaties Of the Unit
ed States, and 10 various controversies
to which "a State is party; bat it does
not include III its enumeration contro-
versies between State aud It's own cit
liens. There can be no ground there
fore, for the assumption iy Federal
court Of jurisdiction Of offences against
the laws OF State The Judicial power
granted by the constitution does not
cover any such case OF controversy.
And whilst it is well settled that the
exercise Of the power granted may be
extended 10 new cases as they arise un-
der the constitution and laws, the power
itself cannot be enlarged lay Congress.
The constitution creating government
of limited powers put bound upon
those which arc judicial as well as those
which are Legislative, which cannot be
lawfully passed.
This view would seem TO loo conclu-
sive against the validity of the attempt
ed removal of the prosecution in this
case from the State court. The FEEDER
al court could not, in the first instance,
have taken jurisdiction of the offence
charged, and summoned grand jury to
present an Indictment against the ac-
cused; and, if it could not have taken
jurisdiction ut first, it cannot do SO upon
removal Of the prosecution To it. The
Jurisdiction exercised upon the removal
is original and not appellate, Us is some
times enormously y asserted; for, as stated
by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury
VS. Madison, already cited, it is of the
essence of appellate jurisdiction that it
reviscs aud corrects proceedings already
had. The removal is only an indirect
mode by which the Federal court ac-
quires original jurisdiction. (Railroad
Company VS.. Whitton, I3 Wall, 2S7l.
The constitution, it is to he observed,
in the distribution Of the judicial power,
declares that in the cases enumerated in
which a State is party, the Supreme
Court shall have original jurisdiction.
It's trainers seemed to have entertained
great respect for the dignity of a State,
which was to remain sovereign ut least
in its reserved powers, notwithstanding
the new government, and therefore pro-
vided that when State should have
occasion to seek the aid of the judicial
power Of the new government, or should
be brought under its subsection, that
power should be invoked only in its
highest tribunal 1t is difficult to be-
lieve that the wise men who sat in the
convention which framed the constitu-
ton, and advocated its adoption, ever
contemplated the possibility of State
being required to assert its authority
.,,l,,, q H., d,. srrn;,,et IL, L. r,r l., l,thnn