Year: 1863




We will venture 10 assert that Gov Seymour lciu pro
tee ey citiseH Of the STATE from constrained seriee in
the Federal Army at least until the constutonaity Of
the act shall have been finally tested bv the tribunals
Of the land Should the FEDERAL Government atnapt 10
enforce such defiance Of judicial decision then
there ir be be0een the Std and Federal pos0ers
Gov Seymour has pledged himself 10 sustain ths rights
Of the state They who insist upon the enforcement Of
the draft may draw their own conclusions


From the Ne0 York Erpreg


There is rumor that test case the constitution
ay Of the draft IS 70 be made before the Common Pleas
Court Of Appeals


From the Nelc York World


the Federal Government directs its officers 70 Disc
bsy the process OF the Of New York and saor
ces their disObedience, it simply makes upon the
State Of New York What the State Of New York will
do IN such contingency-hOw 1t will meet revolution
10 is unnecessary 20 say Whatever IL does whether
the way Of resistance remOnstrance will be done
calmly, cOoy, with the dignity beftting the Empire
state and with the power which its contributions Of
millions Of treasure and two hundred regiments the
war have not impaired


This is the mere madness of fanaticism and
treason. We publish il simply to show how ut
terly added are the wits oil those who seek TO
enbarrass the Government and aid the cause OF
the Rebels.


There is no occasion for conflict of Jurisdiction
between the State and Federal authorities. There
is no chance for such conflict, except by revolu-
ton. Fortunately, the boundaries are clearly
defined; the respective province and power of
each are determined by precedents and dcta
which cannot be impeached. The authority of
the State Courts must, as the World suggests,
be respected; how far that authority extends
and What the limits OF its Jurisdiction are-is de-
tsrmined By an irreversibts judicial fiat. Upon
that fat the Federal Government plants itself as
upon a solid rock


The case of Ableman vs. Booth is familiar to
our readers. The defendant was arrested BY the
United States Marshal on charge of resisting the
Fugitive Slave Law. He applied for and obtain.
ed writ Of habeas corpus from one of the JUS
tiesS of the Supreme Court of the State of Wis
eOnsin on the ground that the Imprisonment was
Illegal, because the law under which be Was held
was unconstitutional The marshal having OBJ
tanned writ OF ceTti0rGrt, the case was sub
sequently argued before the Supreme Court of
the State and the decision of the Justice affirm
ed. Afterwards, at a term of the United States
District Court Booth wes indicted for the offence
with which he was charged before the Commis-
sioner, and from which the State Court bad dis
charged him. He was found guilty he moved
! for a new trial; the motion was overruled and a
sentence Of Imprisonment for one month and the
payment of 81 900 fine passed upon him. He
sgsin applied to the State Courts on the ground
that the arrest was Illegal, and the act under
which il was made, unconstitutional. he obtain





shal TO produce his body and make known the
cause OF his Imprisonment. The latter made bis
return, refusing to knowledge the jurisdiction OF
the State Courts, but stating the sentence of the
District Court Of the United States as bis au-
thority. The prisoner fled demurrer and the
question was heard before the State Court, which
decided that the Imprisonment was illegal and
ordered that Booth be "forever discharged from
imprisonment and restraint" Application was
made to the Chief Justice of the United States
Supreme Court for writ of Error, which va:
issued and citation for the defendant to appear
mae. The State Court directed its clerk &c
make no return TO the writ o: Error" Final
ly, the Supreme Court of the United States, or
motion OF the Attorney General, ordered the
, copy of the record, 6led by that official, to bC
received and entered on its docket.
The case was reached for argument in 1858
and a decision. adverse TO the defendant, deny
ing the jurisdiction Of the Wisconsin Suprem
Court, and affirming the constitutionslty Of th,
Fugitive Slave Law, rendered by Chief Justice
Taney-all the judges concurring. This opin
ion Is remarkable as a triumphant vindicatlon o
the policy OF the Government in its proposed
procedure under the Draft, and an snanswersbl,
reply to those whs insist that the State Court
should intervene between the conscript and th,
Federal authorities The Solicitor General him
self could not present the case more strongly il
behalf OF the Administration.


Judge Taney discusses the question of Stat,
and Federal judicial jurisdiction at length com
bats the position of the Wisconsin Judges, anC
asserts that the supremacy of the State Court
over the Courts OF the United States is nov 70
the first time asserted and acted upon in the Su
preme Court of State" He remarks that 9Th
sphere OF action appropriated to the United
States is as far beyond the reach of the jzdi
"cial process issued by State Judge or Stat
"Court as il the division was traced by land
marks and divisions visible to the eve. An
"ihe State Of Wisconsin has no more power {
authorize these proceedings Of its judges ar
courts, than il would have had if the prisone
had been confined in Michigan or any sthe
"State of the Union for an offence against th
laws Of the State in which be was imprisoned.


He proceeds 10 show that the Federal supren