The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1890-04-16
GENERALIZATION AND THE SUPREME
COURT.

The decision of the supreme court of
the United States in the NEAGLE matter
illustrates, quite distinctly, the difference
between Republican and Democratic prin
ciples. There are two members of the
court who are Democrats, the others being
Republicans. The chief justice and Justice
LAMAR, true to their Democratic creed and
to the underlying principles of human free
dom, dissented from the majority, or Re-
publican, opinion of the court, and asserted
that murder committed under the jurisdic-
ton of state, is punishable by the laws
Of that state. They believe in such
construction of the constitution
as shall leave the largest possible
measure of freedom to the state and by
parity of reasoning, to the people of the
state; themaiority of the court in accord
Rnce with its predictions for centraliza
ton of power, for government which
shall oe strong at the comparative sacrifice
of human liberty and tue partial destruc-
ton of the right of local self-government,
broadly construes the federal authority to
be wide enough to punish man who VIC
iates the laws of state by Staying
one Of its citizens. We regard this
an an extremely dangerous position. 1t is
argued by the court that the constitution
directs that the President shall take care
that the laws are faithfully executed; that
the law requires an associate justice of the
supreme court to go on the circuit; that
the act of the prisoner having been COM
mitted in pursuance of the law Of the
United States, he cannot be guilty of a
crime under the laws of the state of Cali
fornia; that the circuit court, therefore,
had authority TO release him on a writ of
habeas corpus. The minority very logic
ally reply to this by saying that Judge
FIELD was being protected as private cit
i2en, and that his official position did not
enter into the question; TERRY sought the
man, not the court. The dissenting justices
say that if the United States has authority
to release NAGLE on,habeas corpus it would
have had authority to try TERRY for muir
der had he killed Judge Field.
There are many other provisions of the
constitution that may be made the basis OF
q similar claim. In fact it may be said that
all of our personal rights and liberties are
secured to Us by the constitution; certainly
it Is true that no state can deprive Us of
for instance, the right of trial by jury, or
ebridge the right of free speech, or perse
cute US by bills of attainder or ex post
facto laws; ali these things would be in di-
rect violation of the constitution of the
United States and Of the laws made TO Sc
cure TO US these heritages of freedom
Would our supreme court hold that murder
done IL attempting to enforce or to prevent
the exercise Of these rights, of all our
rights, in fact, is cognizable alone by the
federal courts, So then the federal au
shority is getting wide enough to suit the
most earnest Republican with monarchia
tendencies. 1t has been truly said that the
most advanced federalist Of the last cen
fury would be the foremost of states
rights Democrats of to-day, so far have
theories of Capitalization advanced beyond
his sense Of patriotism.