Newspaper Page Text
' J, i) . ' .it ;,i .";;:... MA RWS It. B O.BIXSOX, EDITOll. "NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS." axx pearhox, rvbutnixa aokkt. Vol. lo. no. 3o. SALEM, COLUMBIANA COUNTY, OHIO, SATURDAY, MARCH 10, 1S5&. WltOLK NO, 49l ANTI-SLAVERY BUGLE. ANTI-SLAVERY BUGLE. From the Anti-Slavery Standard. LETTER FROM A. T. FOSS. ... LrxiNuTOM, Lagrange Co., Indi, February 8th, 1855. I , Editor or the Standard i Since I wrote you, t have, in company of the Griffings, lectured in the following eountiet ; Wayne, Washtenau, Oak land, -Genesee, Chiwassee and Lenewee in Michi gan, and have now made a commencement in La grange Co., in Indiana. .... I will not troubled you with any detailed ao conotf of thene meetings, but will only ask atten tion to the general condition of the anti-slavery cause in Ihese plaoes.' And first, I regret to gay, there far less apparent interest and excitement now than when I first onme into the West. Then tliei .foil election! were at the door, and the Fusion istswcre pregnant with anti-slavery life. They attended or meetings, eierted themselves to get the-people out, cheered our most ultra doctrines, solicited u to meet an answer the Nebraska orators.wbich we were forward to do ; they shouted at eat triumphs over these men, not pausing to consider that the defeat of their enemies from our atandpoint was equally the overthrow of the doctrine which they taught and upon which they acted. : Immediately subsequent to the elections, the exoitement remained unabated. The slightest allasion to the discomfiture of the old fogies was cheered with open throat. But, "a change has oome over the spirit of their dream." Like the allied army before Sevastopol, they have gone into winter quarters and their batteries ate silent. Thus it has ever been with political? anti-slavery : it votes, and then, assured of having done its duty, it sinks to repose. Just before the election, when we attacked the Indiana Black Laws, we were, assured by the political atitt-slnvery men, "If we succeed.they will, this winter, be repealed." The same confident tone was kept up after the election. When we expressed unbelief in such a result, we were rebuked, and charged with an un charitable spirit. Well, the Fusionist have a large majority in the popular branch of the Indi ana Legislature, and the session is drawing near its' close, and yet no effective effort has been made for the repeal of these odious laws, which would be ' a disgrace to the most savage people on the earth. Indeed, I am quite sure that no movement hits been made in that direction at all. I predict that none will be made. One of the citiiens of Indiana has been fined and Imprisoned for doing the Christian act of. feeding the hungry, and giving God' speed to the weary traveller, and yet tlris etnti-slafery Legislature are taking no meas ures to secure the citizens against their persecutors. Alas! When will the people learn that, leaning upon these political pnrtios, they lean upon "a broken staff, which will pierce through their hand.'' There is much of anti-slavery feeling among the people of the West, but it is wasted in political action; The picture, however, is not all dark ; it has ."sunny" as well as a "Shady side." .A portion of the people listen to our arguments and our denunciations, mid are confessing their loss of confidence in all parties and recti whose policy isr to compromise truth with error, and the rights of the slave with the despotism of his master. Indeed, I am quite sure that our labors are now even more effective for good than during the feverish excitements immediately connected with the elections. - Our short visit to Cbiwasee Co., in Michigan, was very satisfactory. The country is new, and the population as yet, though rapidly increasing is sparse. They are freer from the trammels of parties and sects than any people I have ever seen, and are ready to hear and embrace the truth. It would be an excellent outlay if an agent of the American Anti-Slavery Society could spend two or three months in that county. There are few ministers there yet to poison the people with a pro-slavery religion. One sensible man remarked that the rats, the crows and the minis ters never made their appearance in a new country till the hardy pioneer had provided something for them to eat. ' , , . Many of, the churches here are much freer from sectarianism, and more imbued with the love of humanity, than in the East. I will give a single instance as illustrative of this fact. Recently, in a town where I was lecturing, I spent nearly the whole of one lecture in examining the relations of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the Slave Pow er, At the close, I was rebuked, by a prominent member of tho Baptist church, because I had passed over their delinquencies so lightly. I, of course, accepted the rebuke, and promised him that, in a future lecture, I would endeavor to do the Baptists exact justice. With this he was well satisfied. Much the largest number, however of the churches here, as in the East, are wedded to their idols. ' ,Trom every experience which I have had in the West, I cannot doubt that the motto of the Ame rican Anti-Slavery Society, "No Union with Slave holders," is commending itself to the judgements And consciences of this Western people, and is Leing by them accpted, as at once the dictate of truth, and consequently of a wise and sound policy. For Ood and Humanity, A. T. FOSS. : Paramount Idea. What ought this to be with anti-slavery men T What is the great evil in this country, ondangering our Principles, our Union, aur Morals oh r Religion? Is it not Slavery? Have not anti-slavery men proclaimed it to be so for many years? Is it any less so now? If not, Chen why not still make'opposition to it our leading, paramount political idea? Why not concentrate upon it our thoughts, and against it our acts, until we obtain a victory over it ? Why let other and tesser evils d is t root our eounoils, and weaken our tWte.ia this work! Why let minor questions creep in to paraliie our efforts, divide our friends, and postpone,. If not endanger, our final triumph ? i UD't T organisation or remain in one Whose views on this subject are even doubtful -ay,-wkUh do not make opposition to slavery to first and onttolling Idea, tad every other polit IcaI queeUosj OMoodary to this ? Unless our friends do this we bare little hope of success. He that does not do this eannot be an efficient laborer in tb cause of Freedom. Columbian, OPINIONS OF JUSTICE A. D. SMITH. OF THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN DELIVERED FEBRUARY 30, 1855. In matter the petition of John Ryecraft for a writ of Habeas Corpus, and to be discharged from imprisonment and in the matter the like petition of Sherman M. Booth. The fact In luB two Bases are essentially the same, and so far as the observatiUMfti which I feel colled upon to make, may be uttered, they will be regarded as applying to both, and therefore) for Ihft ftftlrA of mntrpniAnfA rofnmnna will mnrlri In th nA(!lilinn nf 1? - ni-r. IV .... I I On the applcation of Sherman M. Booth at the last term of the Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus no copy of the indictment was presented, but only a copy of the warrant upon which he had been arrested, which recited merely that he had been indiotcd under the act of Congress of 1850, for aiding in the escape of one Joshua Glover, This was an ordinary Bench Warrant, to bring in a de fendant to answer to an indictment found in the U. S. District Court, and it appeared to us that wo ought not, (and indeed without an inspection could not,) interfere with the regular action of that court out were bound to presume, that if tlie in dictment, whon at the proper time it should bo brought up tor examination, tailed to present a case of whieh hat court had jurisdiction, or charged no offence at all, and that all such juris diction was preliminarily within the proper scope of the power of that Court. But now the case is different, all these questions have been properly urgea, ana without avail, ana the petitioner conies before us and shows, by the return of the officer, that he has been pressed on to a conviction, and sentenced to imprisonment and is now actually imprisoned within this Mate and that the sole au thority therofor, is a transcript of the rocord of such convxtion. The first, the fundamental question which the case oresents, is. Has this Court the power to enquire into the legality of this authority by which the prisoner is held ? It seems to me that the solution of this question is to be found in a few simple elementary proposi tions, which require little or no proot or argument to sustain them. It is the duty of the Government to protect and secure the rights of its citizens, among which is the right to liberty. This duty of the Government, is to be meas ured only by the extent of the individual right, and it is bound to provide means adequate to the end in view, If the Government bo complex, the means mar be distributed, and the obligations of duty divided, but not so as to full short of tho object to be ac complished. Ours is a complex system, with distributed powers, to each of its parts constituting an en tire sovereignty, and so, of course, in duty bound, as a wholo to furnish complete protec tion. Whatever powers and duties arc not dele gated or assigned to one degartment or branch of the entire sovereignty, must remain in the other. If the one be made up of delegated, and the other of reserved powers, the duties assigned to the former, can only be co-extensive, with the pow ers delegated, and the duties of the latter, must be commensurate with the powers reserved, and these powers adequate to every emergency not within tho scope of the former. The Federal Government is ono of delegated powers, the State Government one of reserved pow ers j the former competent to act only within its prescrilied boundary ; the latter exercising all the functions of sovereignty which have not been delegated to the former. The power to guard ana protect the individual libcry of the citizen, is one of the powers reserved to the State. It was never granted to the Federal Government, (except in very few prescribed cases which have no hearing upon tho present inquiry,) has never been claimed for it, but always conceded to the States. If therefore it is tho duty of the Stale to guard the individual liberty of its citizens, it must neces sarily have the right and the power to inquire into an authority by which that liberty is attempted to he taken away. But the power to inquire includes the power to decide. The right to demand by what authority such imprisonment is attempted, implies the obligation of the power imprisoning to respond. The right to demand such authority on the one hand, implies on the other the duty to exhibit it. Again, the States have delegated to the Federal government the power to Imprison their oitizens in certain cases, but in none other. So far then as that government acts upon the powers thus dele gated, the States cannot interfere to protect their citizens : but iu every other case they not only have the power, but it is their solemn duty to interpose their, authority. As the power by which the Federal Government can imprison is a delegated power, it is bound to show in every case, when it imprisons, that it is acting upon some pow er delegated. It must be "nominated in the bond." The constitution of the TJ. S. is the deed of grant, expressed by written charter, of all the pow ers dolegated to the Federal Government. The States severally retain all else of sovereignty limi ted only by the local constitutions prescribed by the people of each. Therefore, to me it is plain, that when the Fod eral Government attempts to act In a given case, it is bound to exhibit a case within its prescribed powers, for, were jt otherwise, it would involve the assumption of inherent powers, and transcend its character. As the States delegated, and the Federal Gov ernment took power, the latter is at all times an swerable to the former, and may do required to ex hibit the deed, by which it claims to do, or refuses to perform any given act, when so required by the primary original authority. In the constitution of the United States sound policy required the incorporation of a function by which the government thus created might be such in fact, and hence be enabled to act upon individ uals in nil the creative constituent sovereignties. This could only be accomplished by the creation of a judicial department, supreme ana independent within its prescribed sphere whose process should extend to every citizen. But in giving up this vital element of sovereignty, the States carefully guarded it, hedged it about with provisions, which, it was supposed were impassible. They prescribed its extent in the words most carefully, (elected, whose import could soarcely be mistaken, and beyond which it was supposed no venturesomo mind would rush. "The judicial power shall ex tend to all coses in law and equity arising under this constitution, the laws and treaties made, or which shall shall be made under their authority." The words, '-extend to," might, perhaps, upon the theory of liberal construction, be held to be exclu sive in their import, were it not for another provis ion of that instrument which will be presently no ticed. But the very selection of the words "ex tend to." when we consider the extreme caution observed by the members of the convention which framed .the constitution, ought to admonish us against ft rash assumption of exclusive jurisdio tion. That which merely extends to a particular class of subjects cannot upon any legitimate mode of interpretation beconsidered as compromising the whole of suub class to the exclusion of every other power, Several powers WJ eitnd to a given class of subjects, fiuf ops can comprehend them all. The extension of power to subject . i , . . 1 !!.?.. I ny no means mprgeq imxciHsiveiy wiuiih summ power, But we are relieved from the necessity of criti- cism Upon these words, by another provision of the' same instrument in the following words ! j J he constitution, and the taws ol the I mlea Slates made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, tindurtho authority of the U. S. shall be the supremo law of the land, and the judges of every State shall be bound there by. A-e Here in a d'stinct recognition of the power and i dutv of state judges to decide upon, and to conform to, all the requirements, of the federal constitu- and "the laws made in pursuance thereof." I F 1.n .rtvm 'n.ln.l ..." I n n ........ n.nui.i.in Ira..' .1 III. tCIUI CAIQIIII III n IUI IIIUI TIW...".. ..WW intended to be exclusive, and to vest sole and ul-jTliey power In tho federal courts and judges, whv ! should tho obligation of construction and obedi- ence and conlvflnlty lis Imposed upon state judges Why are tho constitution and the laws of the lini-1 ted States made in pursuance thereof, made the law of every state and the state judges bound thereby, unless those subjects were addressed to ! the judicial mind and conscience of thoso offieersj' And why that carcrul phrase when addressed to ..(.! ... ...t.t y.i. , ... ,i state judges, "the latcs of the United Slates, made in pursuancetnereoj, unless those omccrs were re quired to determine whether or not the laws of the United States were made in pursuance thereof? It seems to me that h'jre is an express recogni tion of tlie judicial power of the states, as extend ing to all laws of the United States, and a requisi tion of obedience on the part of the state jiii:3 to all laws of the United States, provided they are made in pursuance of the constitution of the Uni ted States. This view is ftrongly fortified by historical tact, that various attempts were niado to create and establish one ultimate sole tribunal which should finally decide upon nil questions which might arise, in the course of federal and state nd miuistration, in regard to the exercise or claim of delegated powers iu the federal government on the one hand, or reserved powers in the states on the other. But the project was found to he impractica ble in tho then posture of affairs, and the attempt was abandoned ; the convention prcfering rather to incur the hazzard of collision, trusting to the good eonse, patriotism and forbearance of the two gov ernments, and the people, to meet and provide lor siiuii uuiuiiiunuii's uo iiiuy iiiini. ni inu, umii iu tic- a o one sole, ultimate tribunal winch might either abstract from and destroy the efficiency ot the one, or absorb al tho powers of ho other; leave the one n mere league, or the other more dependent odonies oi a consolidated government, according- ly as direction or biRS migh be given it by tempo- rary exigences incident to the commencement of a and untried system. It is clear therefore-, that tho federal government can only operate with, in the prescribed sphere marked out by tho con-1 titution ol the United States; that government, is at all times answerable to the states, so lar as to bring its action within its character: that the judicial power of the Union is as much circum scribed by the constitution as every other depart ment of tho federal government: that an act of congress without tho constitutional sphere .would be no law that a judicial determination without the constitutional sphere would be no judgement, sentence or decree ; that of the acts of congress the state judiciary are bouhd to judge, whenever tncy are brought bcioro it, so us to ascertain whether such acts aro "made in pursuance" of that constitution, because the judiciary is "bound thereby." The Slates never yielded to tho Fodiral Govern ment the guardianship of the liberties of their peo ple. Jn n lew caretully speciued instances they delegated tothelederal Government the power ! punish, and no fnrther.and so far only withdrew j protection. In all else they reserved the, power, and continued the obligation ond duty to! the rights of their citizens, declared to viz: life, liberty iu.d tho pursuit of : happiness. It will readily be conceded that the provision ' which the people have made in their government, I for the protection of these rights in them individ-j ually, is found in the judicial department. That is the arm of sovereignty which they invoke when ! . I. -: : j r l . 1 1 jj : 1 their rights ore individually invaded. Every citi zen has the right to appeal to the fundamental charter of both sovereignties to which he is sub ject to test tho validity of the authority by which his right to liberty is denied. Ittollows, theretore, that the power which he has tho right to invoke in his behalf must possess the right to enquire into the conformity of tho authority set up over his naturol rights, with the fundamental law. s the State judiciary is the only power to which the guardianship of individual liberty is entrusted, it IV ,1 .I... !i tL .1 ! louows mm it must nave me rigiu to enquire into such conformity, It would seem obvious that this power to enqu're has never been surrendered by the States. It is reserved to them and the people thereof. Hence it Is original in the State. If original, then the appropriate means and instrumentalities incident to its exeruise are equally reservea anu originni. Among such instrumentalities, the writ of Habeas Corpus is especially recognized in the Federal con stitution, and a positive inhibition upon the power of Congress to interfere with its scope and func tions, except in specified cases, is caretully inser ted. As if it were not enough to restrict the Federal Government to tho specifically delegated powers; but to render the power of the States more conspicuous, certain nnd efficacious, for the protection of individual liberty, all power on the part of Congress to suspeud even the benefits of the Writ ct Habeas Corpus is expressly denied. Thorcfore, so far as the proceeding under this writ is concerned, it is original, nnd from tho ne- : .. , r . u .1 . r i . .. ... . .!...! cessity of the case the jurisdiction of it is original in tho States, and as Congress cannot suspend its Denonts, it cannot abridge the power and jurisdic tion of the State judiciary i it follows that it can grant to no one exemption from the obligation of obedience to its mandidates; and it as clearly fol lows that every individual within the State, no matter by what authority he may claim to act, is bound to obey the writ, because no power on earth can absolve him from this obligation of obedience. It is sometimes said that this writ Is in the na ture of a writ of error to review the proceedings of an inferior court or magistrate. It is sometimes true, iiut without stopping there to enquire whether, for the pnrpose of this writ the inferior U. S. Courts be or be not inferior to State authori ty as rogards the office of the writ in a preceeding like this it can hardly partake of tho nature of a writ ot error, r.very sovereign power his a right to enquire into the condition ot its subjects and the authority or cause of their imprisonment. This writ is the appropriate means for such enqui ry. When the State uses it to enquire whether oitizens is imprisoned by virtue of a power which it has delegated to another government, it docs not bring the proceedings of that government into ro view ; it only seeks to enquire whether the case talis within its own reserved powers. If within tho scope of the former, it yields to the paramount authority which it has helped to vest. If net, it disposes of the subject matter according to its own course of procedure. The obligations of the State and Foderal Gov ernment are herein perceived to be mutual and reciprocal. The one to abstain from interference whenever it perceivos tho subject matter to be within the attached jurisdiction of tho other, and that other to show that the authority whieh it claims to exercise, is within the power delegated, and which it may rightfully exercise. There is liltl0 danger of troublesome collision so long a eac) sliiHl bp wjlling to pleasure its luuctiou I ' ' ' : by peaceTul and constitutional means, which they had the wisdom and foresight to provide in tho op tions ganization of the government. Collisions of this ' Irilill fl TO 1.V fin m.ani l.n.r in llin rriVOrntlK'tlt : " 1 ' - ..V I1.1..1 .... " ... .. . . have occurred from time to time, as the sup timate posod energies of the countrv have called into ex- dele ntC(1 ,,y tl,e constitution and laws of the L ni-. d g t de ,n r8Uftni;e thorcof Any 0lll0r nttempted to be exercised by any depart new ment of the Ternmenti Juld fi0 a man. .fMt , ti nnu nf bin,r validity. The -...:..., c i. r..?i !.,. n.i;i Rct 0f Congress, npproved Sept. lHth, 1850, coin to monly called the Fugitive Slave Act, was not with their jn the constitutional power of Congress. 1 have no time now tn enlarge upon tho view then pre securc beMntcd. But I may bo permitted to say, that af inalienable, ter careful research, ond much reflection, I have not bcen aji0 to perceive any reason to recede the stamlnrd created by the ultimate sourse of al power. Hut if to avoid collision an absolute, my questioning submission on the one hand is roqui sue, ana on inc other, a pcriect immunity iu cmmi and usurp all power, and to bo the solo and ulti mate judge of tho validity of its own claims, then collision is the preferable alternative, because collision Invokes the arbitrament of the ultimate source of all power, the people themselves, whose judgement and dcorees are made and pronounced . ercise tiow powers, or seemed to require the adop- tion oi the new measures. Hut such collisions) havo all along our history found their appropriate t remedy in the awakening of inquiry ; in a recur-1 ronco to primary ond fundamental principles, and, in a return to tlie constitutional sphere. And soj it will ever be, until one or tho othor shall rashly and madly rush on to extremeties, in ueu.ince oi . . i. I constitutional remedies The State judges ond court! are as much bound to Bupport the constitution and law 8 of the Unkrd States, as are the Federal courts and judges. 1 cannot yield to the assumption, that the former will j be less miudful of their oaths and obligations than the latter; though I can really perceive why the State julges, may be naturally more mindful of j the exact line of demarcation between delegated and reserved powers, because they are under an j nam noma obligation to support tno coDsiauuon and rights of the States. If these views bo corrected, how stands the pres ent cdso? It js c!cn !y our duty to grant this writ, to enquire into the cause of the prisoner's cap tion and detention. The return of tho respondent sets out such caute. Our next duty is to enquire into this return in order to ascertain whether the frisoncr is held by virtue of any legal authority, t will be conceded that the only rightful authority by which lie he can bo imprisoned, must bo er.cr cised either by tho Government of this State, or by that of the United States. So other power can rightfully interfere with his right of liberty. But ii is ouuecui u imu no is not nuiu uy me ituuiorii ascertain ,vhetlicr ,ie u hclll'b n constitutional authori, of llie Fettornl Govrnllfent. Whatever h w(Mty nmy b( to ,)0 ot nny Tlllidi,y ,vmt. lnu9t diy pPOar to be within the powers ne c,, 'I'l.- nn-t -i !- 1. ,a t. tJ W1,s exceedingly caution, nbout conferring criminal jurisdiction uyon the jNauonul govern ment: so muoh so that an enumeration of the crimes for which punishment could be provided, j was carefully made. Congress has, however, pro-1 vided for the definition and punishment of nu-1 merous other crimes and offenses, as nocessarily i iiicideut tn the due execution of powers expressly j granted. But all agree, that tho Federal Courts can exercise no criminal jurisdiction, except in casea specifically prescribed by an act of Con grcsst Evejr act of Congress must be conformable to the Constitution ; that is, either the exercise of some power expressly granted, or necessary to the execution of some express power. I have on another occasion attempted to show the from the positions thon taken, but on tho contrary it is clear to my uiind that the opposite doctrine is dangerous to the sovereignty and independence of the States, destructive of tho peace and harmony of the union, and ultimately subversive of the very i . .. i .. . ! .... 1 i. 1, . i U.I1U iiuumui uomuiii iiuiiiru l't iii.vv UlllHIIICII I., X cannot discharge my duty without again reitera tion1 the conclusions to which I then arrived. 1 cannot hang my conscience upon tho suggestions or opinions dictated by the conscience of others. They must judge and act for themselves. So must I. I must be faithful to my trust as others doubt less are to theirs. But believing as I do, that Congress had no power to pass the act ot 1850 ; .. . .1 , .? J . 1 ,! . J 1 I U- II.. that the duties nnd obligations declared by the constitution in that respect, by Sec 2 of Art. 4 of - r : 4 il. n O... llie vonsiiiuiiou were imposim upon iuu outiue, and all power in relation thereto, reserved to tho States and people. 1 am compelled to hold that tho act is unconstitutional and void, and con fers noauthority upon tho Federal Courts. This doctrine goes to the jurisdiction of the Court, which attempted to try and sentence, which jurisdiction is always subject to inquiry and de cision in any other court in which its proceed ings may conio in question collaterally, or other wise. This is true of courts of general origi nal jurisdiction, and much more is it true In re gard to courts of inferior, special and limited jurisdiction. The 2nd Clause of tho 9th Section of the 1st Article of the Constitution of tho United States provides ; "The privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended unless when in eases of rebellion or invasion, tho public safety may re quire it," The insertion of this clause iu the constitution clearly indicates tho extrcnio caution which was i i .1 i r . i. - -:. i r-.. tion nd also the apprehension which they felt, CXCrClSCU liy llie IlieillourH oi uiu -.luonui vumuii lest the power of the states might prove too much for tliatof theFederal government. While, on the one hand, they obviouily intended to loave to the State governments the jurisdiction nnd control of this high prerogative writ, in all ordinary circum stances, and on all ordinary eccnsions, on the other, they granted to Congress the power to sus pend its privileges whenever there should be man ifest an open rebellion against the Federal author ity, or an invasion of tho National or Stato Terri tory. The suspension of the privileges of the writ here roferred to, could not be held as applying only to the power of tho United States courts to issue it, because such power could bo made to extend to but few cases, and more palpably, because it could hardly be conceived that tho national judiciary would ever be found disposed to ubb the writ in aid of the subversion of the very authority upon tho existence of which their own functions de pended. Hence it is apparent that the exhibition, and the exceptions therefrom, havo reference to the State functionaries, and the clause must be re garded as restrictive upon the power of Congress to interfere with the authority of the Stnte judges to issue, hoar and determine the writ. Thisclnuse of express reservation to the States of power then may be rogarded in two aspects, the one as an ju risdiction over tho writ of Habeas Corpus, in all eases whatsoever, oxcept in eases of rebellion or inrnuion when the public safety might require its suspension; and in such cases, as on absolute grant of power to the Congress to suspend its pri vileges. But these eases must bo declared by Con gress before any suspension can be ordered. All This goes to show that the framers of the constitu tion not only recognized in the States the general ibsoluto control of the writ, but by the provision ..itml hnliirfllv reauired obedionce to it, on all occasions and by all persons and functionaries, whether State or federal, unless Congms should declare the existence of the emergencies wherein it might aud should suspend us pruucge i j I III view of this remarkable provision of the Son- ititution. it is not a little surprising that a cftvini is lately set up in behalf of federal officers, even of, the lowest grade,, of entire immunity from any ob- ligation to regard the writ when emanating from, state authority, and that jurisdiction of the writ ; is partly questioned by inferior ministerial officers', even when issued from tho higher judicial tribunal of a sovereign state. However regardless n peo-i may bo of encroachments upon the power to which alone they have confided their liberties, it ' would seem that such pretentions, from such sour-' ces, could hardly fail to invite inquiry In regard, not to the right of sovereignty originally reserved, in regard to what yet remains, no't yet fl it' tered away bv thoughtless acquiescence on the one hand, or voluntarily rurrender on the other. But it seems to me unnecessary to pursue this further. The whole tenor and scope of the redetal constitution indicates most clearly that , the State judges, and indeed all State officers were essential to its maintenance and support, and ae-, cording the very last clause in the instrument ! requires such officers to be bound by oaths or nffir- i mation to support it. Yet the course of reasoning I sometimes r.isortcd to in order to oust the judiciary j of jurisdiction of a constitutional question is based . upon tho assiimrtion th.it State judges must ncocs-' sarily be reckless of such obligation, arid that fidel- ity to official duty is only to be expected from fed- j eral officers. But this assumption goes too far. , It is a weapon with a double edgo. The same hypothesis presupposed that federal judges arc 1 utterly unmindful of the restrictions which the ! constitution imposes upon federal power, and that ' they are willing, for the sake of uniformity to nd-j ministcd nil power both State and national. Nci- . ther assumption is true". The earnest desire of nil ! is to ascertain the true lino of duty and to act accordingly. 'J'hnt errors upon both sides must I necessarily be committed, is only admitting that j the agencies by which each government is ad mini s-' tered are human. But those who suppose that error upon tho ono side or the other must neccssa- rily lead to insurrection, revolution and anarchy ; have studied the temper of our people and officers , to little purpose. Tinic, reason reflection, discussion, forbear- unco, patriotism will now, as they have done here- prove that the wisdom and intelligence of the parties interested, and especially of the 1 . ultimate authority will bo found competent to the emergencies which call lor tlieir exercise, and equal to the fortune which may put them to the test. I agree fully with the cotlrrc of reasoning of my brut ter Crawford upon the second branch of this case, viz : that the record of conviction here re turned docp not show an offence within the juris diction of tho federal court, even admitting the act of 1850 to be canstitutional ; nnd even on that ground alone I should agree to discharge the pris oner. 1 nm permitted, and desired to adopt ins reasoning in that respect, which is so clear and conclusive that further suggestions would bo en tirely superfluous. I will only say that whatever tho Congress may have designed bythe 7th soo. ol the act of 1850, such design can only be discovered from tho words of the statute. If they failed to designate the offence as they intended to do, their defect cannot be supplied by any legislation of a judicial tribunal. By their owu language must their enactment be construed, and it their in tontions may be thwarted in consequence or a failure accurately to express them, Congress has the same power to amend that it had originally to enact the statute. I have deemed it my duty on this occasion to express my views on a question whieh 1 deem vi tal to the system on whieh our government is based. The foundation of my action is broader and deeper (ban the mcro purport of the indict ment, though that alone would be sufficient for the present emergency. But the occasion suggests, indeed upon the nrgtimcnt have been raised, ques tions involving tho powers of the Federal and State Governments, questions not confined to the particular subject mutter the act of 1850, but ques tions pervading the entire scope of the two gov ernments in nil their departments, upon other sub jects which may from time to time arise. And firmly believing that tho beneficent designs of the Union can only be realized and the union ltteu only preserved, by maintaining the indepenpent sovereignty of the States intact, in all respects, except where they have clarly delegated power, and by confining the Federal Government to the powers clearly conterrcd, 1 have felt called Upon to placo my views upon our records, in order that I may dischnige my full duty and that my reasons for the decision to which I have been impelled may fully known and not misapprehended. The following is said, is from the pen of James Russell Lowell. It is Pithy; read it. Wo can't suit tlrem Southern fellers, They're a drcffle graspin' set, We must alters blow the bcllei'3 When they want tlieir irons hct ) May-bo it's all right as preachin', But my narves it kind o' grates, When I see the over-rcachin' 0' them nigger-dr'.cin' Stales, You may talk of Freedom's airy Tell they're purple in the face It's a grand great cemetery For the birth-right of of our race ; They jist want this ore Xebrasky So's to lug new Slave States lu, To abuse ye, and to scorn ye, An' to plunder y j like sin. Aint it cute to see a Yankee, Take sich everlastin pains All to git tho Devil's thankee, Helpia' on 'em weld their chains ? Why, it's jist as clear as figgers, Clear ez one and ono make two, Chaps that make black slaves o'niggers Want to make white slaves o you. Wall, go 'long to help 'em stealin' Bigger lands to cram with slaves ; Help the men that's oilers dealin' Insults on your father's graves ; Help the strong to grind the feeble, Hulp the many agiu the few ; Help the men that call your people, Whito-wasbcd slaves and pedliu' crew, f.l I had my way I'd rather We should go to work and part They take ono way, we take t'other Guesss it wouldn't break my heart! Man had ought to puf assunder, Them that God has no ways jined j An' I shouldn't greatly wondor, Ef thore's thousands o' my mind. Frcit or War. Although the Russian com merce with foreign countries is by no means exten sive, and exposure to the cruisers of the allied fleets during the present war has been particularly avoided, yet the British have captured no less than ninety-two Russian prize vesicls, From the Ohio Columbian. MISS NEWHALL'S NICE SENSE OF COLOR. CINCINNATI, Feb. 17, 5th lour cnrteyHindont fi. alluded last week to Ui -ittempt of Miss frewhall, of the seventh district, to exclude from-the school a pupil, in whom there was supposed to b mi-i.K-enth p-irtion of color" pie 'ed blood. No one wltllutif clou observation cnuW discover that the boy was tnst entr'ry- white. Il had been attending the rehr-nl he evrltl years, and none of the teachers in tho lower departments made any objections to him. But upon Ills beinrj -hut transferred to Miss Ncwhall's roonr. he; tjeitig South Carolinian, immediately exhibited symptoms ,of Colofnphobin, and sent the boy home. HH local trustees, Mesys. Goodman and Ogden, inves subject ed the case and Instructed her to rece.v. .he PUP' J J' 8 "t"u,,7 ,efu'71 Kntil ",l6 wa" I''y to lose her place l.l the school for con, , t(M.I,l't.,?f the,.r """"-"?i -ht cohsenled to re '0,.,e "J" ,,,,1Jur l"-utet, and appeal l the whole !l:l",ol "oard- consisting of 64 members, At their meeting on hist Monday, they had1 air exciting discussion on the question. The opinion of Judge Walker, that the boy had a legal right to the privileges of the school, also the decision of three of being a majority of the whole Board, though a majority of those present. Messrs. Goodman and Ogden, the local trustees who had decidod in favor of the boy, thereupon resigned their places in the Board, declaring that they would not serve in a Board that would thus denyn pupil his legal rights. The caso will bo appealed the Supreme Court, and the action of the School Board doubtless reversed. I find in the January number of the Journal of Education a decision of this question by the State School Commissioner, 'In- H- H- Barney, which your readers will be in- tcn-stcd in perusing. In nswV? the question, "Are children of less -tofore, than half African blood entitled, as a matter of higal right to the privilege of attending the com- tn fill cnhniila rF tt.a Vtntn " l - it fi the Supreme Court to that effect, were" read, J. IM Miner, Ksq , a prominent lawyer of this city, was employed by the parents of tlie boy to defend his rights before the Board. The Board denied this privilege, always allowed to those whose right nrc in question, and by a vote of 16 to 10, decided to remove the boy from tho school, This lacked answer the above question, it is necessary to under stand the judicial construction of the torui "uhilt," as used in the Constitution of this State. In the case of Gray v. Slate of Ohio, found in Vol. 4, Ohio Reports, pago 354, it is held that per sons nearer white than a mulatto, or half blood, were entitled to the privileges of whites. Williams v., S:hool Directors, etc. Wright'e Reports, page 578. In this case the question was whether the children of a iriie mother and a father three quarters white, are white children within the meaning of the school law. Affirmative opinion given. T hacker v. 11 itk, ct. al. Vol. XI. Ohio Reports, page 870. In this case it was held that a person nearer white than a mulatto, is n while person wimin me meaning oi me constitution. Uine v. JJaker, el. al. ol. 12, Ohio Reports, page 237. Held that youth of Negro, Indian, nnd White blood, but of more than half white blood, arc entitled to the benefit of the school fund. According to the decisions in the cases cited, an affirmative must be given to the question pro pounded. A GENTLEMAN'S BODY SERVANT. In a recent number of tho Xew Orleans Delta wo find the following advertisement : DINING-ROOM SERVANT FOR SALE A mulatto slave, 23 or 24 years old, an accomplished Dining-room and general House servant, gentle' man's body servant, fcc., shaves well, fine appear - anre, acclimated, and sold only from necessity, ii -: n t. r. . 1 1 .. ...... 1 n' n l 4 i I- 11111 ou luuj DiuuuiL-vu. irmin, uPll. Apply UI H. T. GREENWOOD, 47 Carondelet street. Our meditations on this advertisement hav sue gestcd to u s a somewhat diversified train of reflec tion. In the first place, we are struck by the statement that this accomplished dining-room and general house servant "shoves well." From thia we not unnaturally infer that he has been permit ted to approach, razor in hand, the chin and throat . of Mr. II. T. Greenwood, of 47 Carondelet street. probably more than once, nay, possibly quite a number of times; otherwise, Mr. G. would not be able to assert so confidently that he does shave well. The question then arises how Is it that Mr. G.'i throat remains in a sound condition (as we infer it docs from the fact of his advertising, and from hi . necessity for cash) when everybody knows or ought to know, that the Southern slaves are so barbarous and ferocious, that, if they had the opportunity, they would be sure "to out thoir master throat." Next, we should like to know by what rule of justice, by what principle of morality, by what precept ot religion, tills accomplished dining-room and general house servant, and gcntleman'a body . servant, who is of fine appearance, and ia a good barber, is kept in a condition where he merely serves the purpose of Mr. Greenwood, to the ex tent of relieving that gontleman's necessities when in want of "cash." Is not suoh an accomplishe t servrnt, such a good barber, able to take care of -himself? Could he not-, in any city of the civilized , world, if permitted, and not hampered or impeded by this Mr. Greenwood, earn a living for himself t If so, why is he not permitted ? What right has Mr. Greenwood to make use of the scrvicos of such a man, so long as suits his pleasure or convent- jence, and then, when pressed by "necessity," ; cooler offer him for sale, as he would a horse or an j ox, to supply himself with "cash. We" should 1 ftVe to have Dr. Adams or Dr. Lord, or any of the Northern apologists for slavery answer these que ' tinna if tliptf inn find illHtifv tho relation nf Sir. I- -1 - J ,- . , Greenwood to his "servant, consistently witq the principles of Christianity, or even with those of me lowest lorms or muurni ua.ivv anu unruii.. For our part, we do not possibly see bow they are to be reconciled. We are, however, open to oon viction, and will heartily rejoice to be enlight ened. Boston Telegraph. AnniTTixc a Slave. Samuel Charles Chappet, who had been previously employed in Savannah, (ia., in procuring subscribers for a New York pa per (name not mentioned,) was committed to prie on in that city, on the 5th ult., in default of f 1,900 bail, upon tho charge of stealing and carrying out of the State a slave girl, owned (according to Southorn law) by .Mr. James Smiditord. The girl was put in malo attire, and, thus disguised, went off upon tho railroad, in company with Chnppel. They reached Montgomery, Ala., where they wore arrested and detained to await the arrival bf officers from Savannah. Chappel, it seems, con fessed that he took the eirl. but said ha intended. after availing himself of her labor for a time, to. return her to her master. If his object had been to take the girl to the North and thereby aeoura ber freedom, he would be entitled to our sympathy., but there is no evidence that such was his purpose, the penalty for his offence is imprisonment for ant lest than tour nor more than ten years. A. & CiuroRju. The legislature of California has. adjourned, without electing a U, S. Senator. Thej ballottod thirty-eight time for this purpose witfi out effect. . . . , ,'