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.
