Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1853-11-23

QUESTION We concur with the Richmond Enquirer
that is the height of injustice and absurdity to
invegh against President Pierce's Administration as
in the least degree extending sympathy aid and
comfort to the pestent freesoil party To say moth
ing of the Presidents uniform and fearless resistance
to the Vaccinations of the abolitionist and the
BILE and manly sentiments of his Inaugural Address
we may proudly point to his vindcation from the
foul CHARGE to the acts of his administration. In
the first place. he has laid down the fixed rule that
shall hold retain Office, unless he stands
upon the Baltimore platform, prepared to carry out
the compromise measures, especially the full and
complete execution of the fugitive slave law. That
this rule will be strictly enforced and that any pru
dent office-holder who shall hesitate in the discharge
of executing the laws of the country s.dd some of
Mr.. Fillmores officers, with IMMUNITY, will be hurled
out Of Office, one who has watched the course of
events, can for moment doubt"
We cite first, continues the Enquirer, 4" the bold
and thorough going letter of the Secretary of the
Interior, to the Marshal of Pennsylvania, pledgng
the whole power of the administration the
ton of the fugitive slave law We next point the
letter of Attorney General Gushing, denouncing any
coalition with freesoisin and declaring it to be the
determined purpose of the administration to crush
out every clement of abolitionism. Wehave again
the pleasure, this morning, to publish manly and
emphatic opinion of Attorney General Gushing, in
regard to the execution of the fugitive slave law"
But far the South is concerned the Democratic
papers Will be almost alone in laying these important
documents before the people. The Raleigh Register,
for instance, suppresses them, and when compelled
to admit their existence denounces the Administra-
ton for what it is pleased to call its p1etssf0ns in
behalf of Southern rights! We publish below the
letter of Mr. Gushing, the Attorney General in which
he takes the ground that tie H1shaIs Of the United
States auth0rized to employ council in 6eAa Of
the United States in enforcing the fugitive slave law
"a ground never taken, nor thought of, probably,
by the late Administration; and we now call upon
the Register, a matter of simple and eyen-handed
Justice to lay this letter before its readers If it will
only give its readers the 1cS in the matter, may
make as many charges as it pleases. Here is the
letter:
ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
18th November, 1858.
SIR The Secretary of the Interior has referred to
letter of the Hon. j. ID. Bright one OF the Sch
ators of the State of Indiana, with documents
companying the same, by which the following facts
appear.
In June last Pleasant Ellington, of the State of
Missouri instituted proceedings in due form, at In
dianapos, in the State of Indiana, for the reciama-
ton of John Freeman cOlorcd man residing at In
dianapols, alleging that Freeman had escaped from
service due Ellington, in the State of Kentucky;
and warrant issued by commissioner of the
United States, directed to John L. Robinson, marshal
of the United States for the State of Indiana, COM
handing him to arrest Freeman, and hold him to
abide lawful decision in the premises. On hearing
before the commissioner, the alleged fugitive applied
for time to obtain evidence to disprove the claim,
which granted; and at an adjourned hearing,
about two months afterwards, it proved salts
factorily that Freeman did not service to Filing
ton and he accordingly discharged and released;
whereUpon he has brought suit against the marshal
for alleged miseaSance in the premises i'll his arrest
detention and personal examination
In view of which facts, Mr.. Bright inquiries IN be-
half of the marshal
1st Whether the case can be transferred from the
courts of the State of Indiana to those OF the United
States? And
ID Whether the marshal may be authorized to
employ counsel in his defence at the charge Of the
United States?
In regard to the first point Of opinion that,
both parties being inha bants of the State of lnd
ana there is no existing provision of law by which
the be removed to the courts of the United
States; and do not think 1t eXpedIent III this CASE
at least in the present stage of it, to suggest any 9th
possible mode Of bringing it before the courts of
the United States. 1t may, of course, be made the
subject Of revision there.
AS to the second point, [ am of opinion that 1t
would be proper for the President to authorize the
employment of counsel at the public charge, for the
defence of the marshal.
1t is the constitutional duty of the President to
take care that the laws be faithfully executed" This
by implies that he shall nterpose in mat
ter of mere individual and private litigation But
do sometimes occur between private individuals
frequently where public officer is party,
in which public interest is incidentally involved,
rendering it lawful and advisable that counsel be en-
ploycd by the United States. And it may be a case
of public cOncernment, though no property of the
United States be at stake; for the integrity OF the
constitution and conservation of the laws are mat
.er of much greater importance to the government
than the defence Of parcel of the national domain
or the collection Of duties cargo of imported
merchandise In any such case, it is question OF
discretion the part of the President head OF
department to employ counsel for the United States
not, according to his judgment Of the particular
without its being possible to lay down
any specific general rule on the subject have |
doubt of the power of the President in such emer-
gencies; it is Of familiar practice in the daily buSl-
ness of the government.
Examples Of this not wanting in cases where |
officer of the United States is party, and no in
of the United States directly concerned other
than the general security of the Constitution the
peace and honor Of the Government Of this an IL |
ustraon in the part which the United States
took in the case some years since of the indictment
found in the State OF New York against Alexander |
Mcleod.
1 shall not attempt to lay down any general rule !
of executive discretion in such cases. for the reason
already intimated that this discretion must of ne
cessty be guided by the particular circumstances. |
But questions in the execution of laws which affect
ments or the relations of the States between them
selves or them and the federal government may, it
seems to me- call occasionally for the employment of
fOft tho al