The Montgomery advertiser., 1904-10-12
fcontinued from cage Three.)

(Continued from Cage Thfee.)
 towards each other, and imposes sane tions. for the enforcement Of those rules, without referring to any supposed act of the State or its authorities. The court said that 'the implication or power in Congress to legislate in tnls manner is based upon the assumption, if States are forbidden to legislate or act in a particular way on particular subject. and power Is conferred upon Congress to enforce the prohibition, tnis gives Congress power to legisiate gen orally upon that subject, and not merely to provide modes of redress against such State legislation or action, IS manifestly unsound, because 1t ran counter to the Tenth amendment or the Constitution, which declares that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibit ed by 1t to the States, are reserved 10 the States respectively, or to the peopie. Btu that objection can not apply 10 legislation by Congress which does not step in the domain of general legisla- tion, or attempt primarily to create rights or otherwise invade State au- thority, but is confined merely to pun ishment of individuals who re- the the laws it had made, while its officers are endeavoring to execute them, in obedience to duty enloined on them by tae Constitution of the
  cused of crime from being disposed of except by due process of law. Ordi- narily. Congress may not punish resist ance to the execution of State laws; but where their enforcement is a duty which the Constitution. of the United States itself places. upon State ohhces, and in certain contingencies authorizes Congress to supervise the duty, and relates to right which Is given per son by the Constitution of the United States, there is no reason, on princi- ple why Congress may not pass laws 'to enforce submission on the part of private individuals to the performance of a duty. which the Constitution com pels the State to undertake and which Congress may supervise. Certainly the same act may constitute violation both Of the laws of the State and of the United States An act may amount only to assault and battery under the State law; and yet, the same act. when done with a particular intent may hin der or prevent the enjoyment of right secured by the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof. and thus constitute an offense against the United States under Section 55oS of the Revised Statutes. The United States vs. Waddell, 112 U. S.. 80.
 It is nothing new in our jurisprudence For Congress to legislate against law less acts of private individuals. in or der to aid State officers in the perform nnce of the duties which the Constitu- tion of the United States puts upon them, although the terms of the fun damental law. which impose the duty, give Congress no power to coerce the State. or in any way to interfere with Its officers, if they fail to obey. This, however, is not this case. since under has power to enforce the performance of the duty here put upon the State by appropriate legislation. which in some instances may take the direction ,, Of gnia. 100 U. S.. 3S7. The clause In the Constitution relative to the extradition of fugItives from justice from one State to another. presents a familiar illus tration of the exercise of the power by Congress over private individuals who resist the officers of State in the per formance of duties which the Constitu- tion imposes. uroR them. Under the terms of that article the United States Is without power to compel State to surrender fugitive from justice upon the demand of the Governor of another State The duty under that clause, though imposed by the Constitution, Is only a moral duty addressed to the con- science of the State. Yet, when the State undertakes to obey the Consti- tuition, and enters upon the duty, Con- Rress to further the purpose of the Con- stitution steps in and punishes individ. uals who interfere with the agencies of the State in the discharge of that duty More than century ago Congress un
 der statute now codified as Section 5279 of the Revised Statutes put a heavy penalty upon persons who inter- fere with the agents of the demanding State in the discharge of their duty. t9o1Sgn tSd s0yem sn0Se persons Sn in the languase nolly III U. S., 634) "are the mere agents of the State, with authority 10 receive the fugitive from justice" What difference is there in principle between legislation Of Congress which punishes persons who rescue a fugitive from Justice in the custody of the agent of which punishes persons who overpower the offices of the State, and murder an accused person in their custody, to pre- vent the prisoner from having triai of the State to afford him? In the passage of such law the Government of the United States performs quite a differing function from that of aiding the State, when 1t Is unable to preserve it's own peace in the execution of the laws: The. The language of the su- V Cruikshank ct al es gT S .5s. that Tt is no more the duty d1 or T; within the power of the United states to punish Tor r conspiracy to falsely than it would be to punish for false Imprisonment or murder itself" Is de
 clared in Logan vs. The United States. IA U S.. .2s7, to refer to the funda. mental rights of life and liberty which are not created by or dependent unon the Constitution of the United States anG hes m are Created sIS1 S1 rights and ent upon the Federal Constitution r. has been held in numerous decisions that the function person Is perform ing, whether a private person or an officer determines whether his right to perform it is dependent upon the Con stitution and laws of the United States, fin such sense that Congress may IeRfs- late to protect it. A State officer in protecting his prisoner to prevent his being deprived of life, upon accusation of crime. without due process of law, Is performing a duty due primarily to the State. 1t is true. but 1t is a duty which the Constitution of the United States also enjoins upon him, to the end that citizen of the United States shall he protected. and the citizen has a right to have 1t performed. because the duty arises out or the Constitution cial provision which authorizes Con Rress to puish persons who injure oth- CTS for giving information to It's ofi- cers: yet, 1t is held that Congress may punfsh such acts because such person is assaulted for exercising privilege