Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-07-16
Il II E B u G L E .
John Freeman-IIabeas Corpus.

We have listened TO no small amount oil
discussion since 1850, on the question "does
the fugitive slave law supersedo the writ Of
llabeas Corpus?" We could never indulge
n doubt of it, but Wings and Democrats
have. The question has at length been
raised in the case of John Freeman, ut III
diannpolis, and at least one judge hns decid-
ed for the supremacy of the fugitive slave
law.
We cannot better present this question
than it was done 10y the following letter of
Freemnn's counsel to the Editor of the In
copy the opinion of the court, and portion
Of the proceedings in the case. In a prev
ious number of our paper, we enormously
stated that Freeman was discharged. lie is
imprisoned there, aud awaits his final trial,
which wns deferred nine weeks, to give him
opportunity to prepare for his trial.
: This U. S. Commissioner must have been
q rure mnn for his post, or he would have
Obeyei the law aud granted summary trial,
instead of so loug an adjournment
The Democrat also contains copies of pn-
pers certifying beyond possibility Of doubt,
the freedom of the man, if lie shall he able
TO verify tllem
Here is the letter from Frcemnn's Coun-
sci:
Mn. EDIroR Our position before Judge
Major, among oilers, was, that the prisoner,
E-.o.... ooulI Heontrnv.rt the return IN tile,
writ of habeas corpus, or allege nny new
matter in avoidance Stat, 2 VOL, p.
1916; that the right to "alege new matter"
of course, implied the right to hear the evil
dence and that the exercise of this right 10y
n State Court is not, in the least, in conflict
with the Constitution Of the United States,
or any act of Congress.
We conceded that the Judge could not
give 10 the claimant a certificate OF removal
of fireman into slavery, tint TINT could be
done alone by the u. s. Courts, or ilgir
commissioners, upon " satisfactory proof;
and that, the very moment il appeared that
Freeman was slave. the jurisdiction OF tho
Stnte Judge would cease-be could then
only remand him to the custody of the U.
States officer.
But ice insisted that until that fact appeared
the presumption was, tlint he wns n free mani
aud that the State Court, or Judge, wns fully
competent to investigate that fact. IL Is not
TO be taken for granted, because MIR. Filing
ton clnims Freeman 10 be his sinrc, that he IS,
therefore, his slave; aud until that appears,
the State Court, or Judge, is not Ousted OF
jurisdiction.
This view of the case is perfectly consist.
ent with all that il claimed for the fugitive
slave law. II was never intended by that
law that the United States should reach forth
her arm into free State and seize Il free
man. She lias no more right to touch such q
man, than the State Court has to discharge q
slupe from the custody Of his master. The
truth is, the whole difficulty is difficulty OI
fact, not of lao. We admit, that the very
moment il is conceded, or appears from proof
that the person arrested is a sidre, the jnris
die,ion OF the State Court ceases. And we
assert. that the very moment that il is con
ceded, or appears, that the person arrested
is a free man, the jurisdiction of the u. .
Courts, under the fugitive slave law, ceases.
The question then is, Is he free man Of
m slape? And we assert, that the STATE
Court is Just as competent to try this fact a
the u. S. Court. And, MS the presumption
of all law is, that all are free whose fee
tread upon free soil, that il was much NOR
becoming and Satisfactory that the State Cour
should try the question of fact. And to as
sumo the reverse of these plain proposition
isto yield the sovereignty of State TO
claim, that has nothing to sustain il but AFRO
gance.
KETcHAM, BARBOUR, a. CoBURN.
OPINION OF THE COURT.
My line of duty in this case is periecil
clear aud plain. The net of Congress-, ap
proved September l8, 1850, called the Fugi
live Slave Law, vests in commissioners an
pointed under the act of Congress, in III
judges Of the circuit and district courts Q
Ihe U. s., and in judges of the superio
courts Of territories, the power aud author
ity u, curry into effect the provisions OF thu
law. Neither this or any other act of Con
gress confers such power upon State coul
or officer. Nor is there any act of the Gen
eral Assembly of Indiana which even al
tempts to vest such power in any of he
officers or tribunals.
Under this act of Congress, Commissions
Sullivan issued his warrant for the apprt
hension Of John Freeman, a man of colo
upon the alleged ground TINT he owed Bel
vice to Pleasant Ellington, for the purPos