Anti-slavery bugle. [volume], March 10, 1855, Image 1

About Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861

Image provided by: Ohio History Connection, Columbus, OH

                
i.
'
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"If we succeed.they will, this winter, be repealed."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. . . . , ,'