Activate Javascript or update your browser for the full Digital Library experience.
Previous Page
–
Next Page
Full Title
A report, of the whole trial of Gen. Michael Bright, and others: before Washington & Peters, in the Circuit Court, of the United States, in and for the district of Pennsylvania, in the third circuit, on an indictment for obstructing, resisting, and opposing the execution, of the writ of arrest, issued out of the District Court of Pennsylvania; in the case of Gideon Olmstead and others, against the surviving executrices of David Rittenhouse, deceased.
Author
Lloyd, Thomas; the arguments of counsel and charge of the judge, revised by each respectively.
Contributor
Bright, Michael, Gen. Lloyd, T. fl. 1788-1819 Olmsted, Gideon, 1749-1845 United States. Circuit Court (3rd Circuit)
Date Added
13 January 2014
Language
English
Publish Date
1809
Publisher
Philadelphia: Printed for P. Byrne.
Source
Pennsylvania
Topic
Bright, Michael, Gen. Trials, litigation, etc. Trials (Resisting an officer) Pennsylvania Philadelphia
About
More Details Permanent Link
Disclaimers
Disclaimer of Liability Disclaimer of Endorsement
OCR
N ‘ :1 .
it t!’ ,2“ ' “
, V - I
. 3 e
' rt . i . ‘. < ‘J -‘
y ‘-. V a r r ‘z - - . V >.,a, t
‘ .. ‘‘ tdi!lid.er1c'e-‘;:1nd:.induce'a.:panse[!'s'I‘hei‘:irgn'1nention tl1e‘p"rn"tl-ol?‘ 5 V ..
T ittl1e‘Unitc(lStatesjis7‘changetl,fnotimproved ;im’<<npp‘om:nx1Imis.A' ‘ i V
; f‘:i1VOi'(l6'cI'-'one‘olijectibiy by:e:ipiosing':liiinsell7, to ii’notl1eitee’qiI:il-9,? 7
, <. A'1,y‘iifsuperable: he liasclm‘nged"‘hi$ attitude, but is',eq(mllyx.i. A W i
Ivtilneiixlalehow,“asfin;his?forn1er;15osition';”lh’efht.pi‘esent%.at$.'7V
h ternpts to7paS‘s’on,]5;-l)ridge‘7as-nnrriow,‘ as) that onewhichithc‘ V.
:1.‘ .;;.-'fo.1l‘0wersjof.:iV2a‘ho‘met;:'say(the fiiithful,"nrc 'to‘pass7to.lP:ira‘-so f
tlise;’:-'I‘l1t: present question from the court implies, ‘thiat,iftho"i. L‘ A
j “:deAc;re4e."‘Vt‘enderecliby the district judge had" becin a .tleL‘ree‘.'olr; 5 j, ., is V
sljjudginent in a court.ofla1w orequity‘, it:.wo'uld ,l1;1ve' lieenia;
,)jiolatio.ne of the zxmeindmeint of ‘the constitution,“invasion of ‘A M,
V ‘state,’ rights,'. and assumption7of'$’unconstitutional authori’ty,i':? 3 -i V , ,
A ‘:1,1l1‘tl1ejformer attempts atldistinction about-itlie‘state:no't be-Q5) 2 it ,
t e -j ijnginamed as :1 party notwithstanding‘. Itlis;a singular felicity: V‘ s '
fA:1t.tyt:n(ling th‘<:sfeder'al.-judiciary, ‘that opposite,and;contr:tclic-r’; T ‘
i’ .‘tOry!‘rei1St$nSleqi1z1ll)i'Con(luc‘eto,‘-the sainetrcvsfnltzin its"f:1vou’r.; “
f .uponf'a;fformer‘focca'si.on I."-was ;defeated,,:hecause the,st-ate,
‘jwasgnot ;‘L.p'arty ::now:7I:am‘jto fail;bg.-cause it’w,as:a7pro'ceed-a l’ ,
, iing,in.a‘prize7C,anse,to”whi,ch;the state andaall the'xv,orldj.ve1'Vef‘ t
. 1 y u parties[;1vI,acknowledgeTwit-hryourhonor;that5great,strictnessrc‘T‘ " ‘
4, iislitobeeobserved inadliering to. the words of the constitution, L
V 4),‘ it is'z1‘rulc, the infringement of which I never will. encour-
‘ x zigelfat the same. time too literal an adherence may lead tog 4' T , H
- 1‘;',,absu'rdity the rule of construction is well exemplifiedyindhefe is F ‘A
; j 'jRo.man law where a penalty was imposednpon‘-’an’ypersriii, ‘L
wlioshould. let blood. in the street‘; a man fell down in a ‘lit: K ..
" fnisttrgeon restored him-by opening aevein. ‘- It woul<l l1ZH,’ev,-
' been a great :ifl'ectatio.n,of:nicety of construction, on'the.parti; M, L
1- i 5 A-fol‘; thejudges, to have inflicted thepenalty in suclra case; tlie
7 ‘reason of the latvvl-and: amendment shews; its-;extent;"i,t,'xvase.;., “
“thought on general: groundstinconsistent iviththe rights eofi .1
s0ver,eigi1;state to be amenable ;to‘ compulsory federnl'pro-M
cess ;j can ‘any: mrmrin. his sober senses? believe tl'l2'lt‘1lt' the
n time that thjeistatesc rcfusetoibe liableeto the exercise of the ‘V
-. . , federal: Supreme ‘Court jurisdiction in matters of law’ and
‘ eqnity',.they were willing to be liable to the exercise of fede; A ,
ral authority in the lowest Court, the district, the admigr " y ‘ ,
'ral.ty,.wl1ereea sailor may proceed againstthem ifthey, should. ‘ M A, 5' . ,,
'ever'be. owners of :1 ship, for wagesrin ‘any trifling. amount, 1;‘?
.. as low.as;the+smallest denomination ofrcoins knowniin-thej ‘ . ’
fie ‘ United States"?1Credqtjudcas‘aj:j2c11i1. From the time’of‘th,e , '
amendment to”.tlie'7;present,moment was ever-“such an idea. N
suggested ; was it;m'enftioned; by the’ 'clistrict"attorney in his‘ ti‘ f
firstsipr second veryglong‘ antli minute address?’ lastly, I rely’
upon ‘it as :conc.1i1sivg:>,';tlia't;“the; distinctionisuggestcdy cannot , is s