Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 22.pdf/181

 Roger Brooke Taney trenchant logic and perspicacity of ex pression, he demonstrates that the fed

165

of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, was pronounced March 7, 1859, upholding

eral union, while composed of indestruct

the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal

ible states, is itself indestructible and

over the state courts. Thereupon the state legislature, in joint resolution adopted March 9, 1859, solemnly de

paramount.

In 1857 the extraordinary and popu larly unknown cases of Ableman v.

Booth, and United States v. Ableman,2o

clared that the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States was "without

arose.

We are wont to refer to the

authority, void and of no force," and

Hartford Convention and the action of South Carolina over the tariﬁ law as

“that a positive deﬁance of. . . all un authorized acts done under color of. . . the Constitution is the rightful remedy." Like his predecessor, in the case of The

the prominent examples of the expres

sion of the doctrine of the right of a state to secede or to nullify the federal

Cherokee Nation v. The State of Georgia,21

law.

the Court was powerless to carry out its mandate. Only the executive by use

In the state of Wisconsin an

effort had been made to inforce the obnoxious fugitive slave law, and the

of military power could inforce the judg

Supreme Court of the state promptly

ment. Happily no state has since fol lowed this unwise example, although Wendell Phillips said: “Some of us had

declared the act of Congress uncon stitutional, while the state resisted to

the utmost the inforcement of the stat Booth had aided in the escape

hoped that our beloved commonwealth would have placed that crown of oak on

of a fugitive slave from the United States deputy marshal, who held him under process issued. by the United States District Court. He was arrested for

her own brow. Her youngest daughter has earned it first.” This decision has been often cited in support of the para mountcy of federal jurisdiction over

ute.

this offense, tried, convicted, and sen

state, where jurisdiction is conferred

tenced in that court. Upon his appli cation the Supreme Court of Wisconsin discharged him upon habeas corpus. A writ of error was then issued by the United States Supreme Court upon ap

by the federal Constitution.

plication of the Attorney-General, Jere miah S. Black, to which the Supreme

March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was inaugurated, and for the seventh time the

Chief Justice administered the oath of office to a President of the United States. Not only were physical inﬁrmities in creasing, but the throes of civil war were

Court of Wisconsin directed its clerk to make no return, and to make no entry upon its record concerning it. The Su

more and more felt. Washington was becoming an armed camp, and even

preme Court of the United States then ordered a copy of the proceedings, which

passions of the impending conﬂict. May 25,1861, John Merryman, a resi dent of Baltimore and a citizen of Mary land, was arrested by the military au

the Attorney-General had before pro cured, to be entered upon its docket

with the same legal effect as if the clerk had made the proper return, and the case thus stood upon the docket for ar gument. Judgment in favor of the United States, reversing the judgment '' 21 How. 506.

Baltimore, his own home, shared in the

thorities and committed to the custody

of the commandant of Fort McHenry. He petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that he was held in duress

“without any process or color of law '1 5 Pet. 1.