Fremont weekly freeman. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1850-1853, 1850-12-21

the 9TH to civil trials at common law, mean
ing final judicial trials.
These are the only provisions in the Con-
stitution of the United States on the subject,
and neither reaches any case of preliminary
examination, and especially where the pro-
ceedings are ministerial, rather than judicial
Is the law unconstitutional because it sus-
pends the writ of Habeas Corpus? Suppose
it is, what is the consequence? Merely that
the provision suspending the writ would be
void, and the writ issue, as in other cases. l
am, however, of the opinion, the language
used does not suspend the writ 1t is no more
than the language which the law implies to
every court of exclusive competent iulisdic-
ton.
The writ is to discharge from illegal res
traint; if the Imprisonment be legal, the writ
itself is discharged.
These have been, 50 far as have observed
the main objections to the constitutionality of
the law, neither of which, in my opinion, is
well taken.
1t is void because it opposes the law of God ?
Here l will quote the language Of one of our
most distinguished men, whose great expert
ence and extensive requirements are his least
commendation. In case lately tried before
Judge Mclean in the State of Indiana, this
identical question was presented, and he used
this language in his charge to the jury.
"No earthly power has right to interpose
between mans conscience and his Maker
He has right, an inalienable right to worship
God according TO the dictates of his own con-
science. For this he alone must answer, and
he is entirely free from all human restraint to
think and act for bimself But this is not the
case when his acts affect the rights of others
Society has claim upon all its citizens. Gen
eral rules have been adopted in the form of
law for the protection of the rights of persons
and things. These laws lie at the foundation
of the social compact and their observance is
essential to the maintenance of civilization
In these matters, the law, and not conscience,
constitutes the rule of action.'
| think the view thus expressed, is unan-
swerable, and the result therefore, to which
have arrived, in my own mind, is, that the law
is binding and obligatory, and should advise
against its opposition by any act of violence
By this law the slave is deprived of no right
which he enjoyed before, under the law of
1898, or under the constitution of the United
States, as explained by the Supreme National
tribunal in the case of Prigg q. the Common
wealth of Pennsylvania
1t was there held that, although Congress
might legislate, legislation was unnecessary
for the capture of fugitive slaves; that the con-
stitution executed itself, and The owner might
seize and return them, when found, in any
other state, by virtue of its authority alone.
l must not, by any means, be understood,
however, as attempting to defend the proprie-
ty and expediency of this law. 1t is unaccep-
table to avery large majority of the people of
the North.
Public disapprobation will continue to ham,
per its execution, and agitate its repeal 1t is
in my opinion, inexpedient The old law of
1898, was infinitely better for the security of
the master; for, exceptionable as it was, in
some of its features, long and general acqui-
escence had given it moral force, which this
can never attain.
A law that makes exparte evidence conclu-
sive of the masters right 20 recapture and re-
turn his slave; that denies jury trial here or
eLseWhere; that provides for the appointment of
swarms of petty officers to execute it; that
gives a double compensation to find every
claim set up in favor of the master; and pays
the expenses in any case from the public treas
ury, can never receive the voluntary co-opera-
ton of our people.
But with all these objections to the propri-
ETY. of the law Violence as not to be thought of
for a moment.
There is constitutional and legal remedy.
A remedy that will not overthrow that stately
edifce of freedom erected by our ancestors on
the ruins of colonial oppression and depend
ence, and which has, hitherto been protected
by the majesty and supremacy of law.
That remedy is amendment or repeal, and
even if that fails, the Union of these States is
still worth preserving, and the law, however
odious, should be submitted to, as both a civil
and Christian duty.
No State was more indignant at the course
pursued By South Carolina, when that State
threatened to nullify law of Congress, and
dissolve the Union, than Ohio.
Let her people be careful not to initiate an
example they have SO repeatedly condemned,
but ever let them rally round the Union of
these States, whether assailed from without,
or from within.
The flag of the Union must be carried down
to future generations, unsullied and untorn
and, if not, in Gods mercy, let Ohio defend ii,
till the last act has sealed its miserable doom.
REUBEN WOOD.
December 10, 1850. e.-.--