Press enter after choosing selection

The Case Of Kentucky Against Ohio

The Case Of Kentucky Against Ohio image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

Washington, March 14. 1861. Chief Jusiico Taney delivered an opinioii mi the matter of the Cominon wealth of Kentucky ugainst the Governor of Ohio, Dennison, deciding it was a cuse of original jurisdiction, and, in effect, onu S ate against another, and thereforo the Gourt has Jurisdiotíoo uuder the Oonetitution. It is a case to omnpel the Governor of Ohio, by muntamus, to surrender a f'tigitive from juBtioe from Kontui'ky. The Court ays that tho demanding State has u right to have every fiuch ' fugitivo dilivered up ; that the State of Ohio has no right to enter into the question as to whe'.her tho act of which the fuijitivo stands acciised i criminal of not in Ohio. provided that it was a crime in Kentucky, ar.a it is the duty of tho Govüi-nor oí Ohio to delivur up, u pon the proper uroofs that the act charged is a crime by the lavs of Kentucky ; that tho act of Congress of 1793, determines what evidence is to be submitted to the State of Onio; that the duty of tho Governor is niinis-terial rneruly, like that of a 8herití r Marshal, and appeals to his good faitti in the discharge of a Oonstitutiojial duty, for tho"reason that Coiigrons canjiot iinpose any Federal duty on the otBoera ol a Siate", and that whereHiich nffioere ace oalled upon ly an act of, Congross, to perforo) such d'ity it is ' oonceived to bo good sense and good faith n their part so to do, and on these grounds the mamlamus is rotused.


Old News
Michigan Argus