is a State, a member of the Union, which has exercised
the powers of government over a People who deny its jurisdiction, and
are under the protection of the United States.
The plaintiff is a citizen of the State of Vermont, condemned to hard
labor for four years in the penitentiary of Georgia, under color of an
act which he alleges to be repugnant to the constitution, laws, and
treaties, of the United States.
The legislative power of a State, the controlling power of the
constitution and laws of the United States, the rights, if they have
any, the political existence of a once numerous and powerful People,
the personal liberty of a citizen, are all involved in the subject now
to be considered.
It behooves this Court, in every case, more especially in this, to
examine into its jurisdiction with scrutinizing eyes, before it
proceeds to the exercise of a power which is controverted.
The first step in the performance of this duty is the inquiry whether
the record is properly before the Court.
It is certified by the clerk of the Court which pronounced the judgment
of condemnation under which the plaintiff in error is imprisoned, and
is also authenticated by the seal of the Court. It is returned with,
and annexed to, a writ of error issued in regular form, the citation
being signed by one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, and
served on the Governor and Attorney General of the State more than
thirty days before the commencement of the term to which the writ of
error was returnable.
The Judicial act,[1] so far as it prescribes the mode of proceeding,
appears to have been literally pursued.
[1] Judicial act, sec. 22, 25, v. 2. pp. 64, 65.
In February, 1797, a rule[2] was made on this subject, in the following
words: "It is ordered by the Court, that the clerk of the Court to
which any writ of error shall be directed, may make return of the same
by transmitting a true copy of the record, and of all proceedings in
the same, under his hand and the seal of the Court."
[2] 6 Wh. Rules.
This has been done. But the signature of the Judge has not been added
to that of the Clerk. The law does not require it. The rule does not
require it.
In the case of Martin vs. Hunter's lessee,[3] an exception was taken to
the return of the refusal of the State Court to enter a prior judgment
of reversal by this Court, because it was not made by the Judge of the
State Court to which the writ was direc
|