Grant County herald. [volume] (Lancaster, Wis.) 1850-1968, 1854-07-17
For the Grant County Herald.
From Madison.
MADISON, July IS, 1854.

Mr.. Editor: Since my last the transac-
lions Of this town have been various. I
believe | gave you an account Of the pro
gress of the Habeas Corpus case up to the
time Of my writing. The Supreme Court
having adjourned over until Thursday last,
of course the case did not progress; but on
|convening, Mr.. Payne resumed his argu-
ment, and occupied most of Thursday
He made the principal argument for the
relator, and it has been called, by those
who are qualified to judge, very able one.
Mr.. Watkins also, briefly followed him
on behalf of Mr.. Booth, and the case was
finally closed by Mr.. Ryan, the Assistant
Attorney for the Government, on Satur-
day last, and the Court now have the case
and probably will not give a decision for
a week. The case has been ably argued
on both sides; perhaps no other case ever
came before our Court, which has received
SO much study, and been argued with more
minuteness. The principle points raised
in case, [ noticed were, as to the legality
of the warrant, by which Booth was ares
ted, and as TO Judge Smiths authority to
grant a writ of habeas corpus in the case.
The point as to the constitutionality of the
Fugitive Slave Law was not SO fully dis
cussed. Mr.. Ryan, for the Marshall, con-
tended that Judge Smith had no authority
for granting said writ, and even if he had,
that the warrant of arrest was legal; also
that the Supreme Court of the State had
no jurisdiction in the matter. He argued
well to show that State Courts had no au-
thority to interfere with the business of U.
IS. Courts, OF visa versa: that State and
United States Courts must not cross each
other but that their courses and iurisdic-
ton lie as two parallel lines, which never
meet or interrupt the process of each 9TH
Ell. He said, admitting the Fugitive Slave
Law to be unconstitutional, if this Court
was to concur in the decision of the Judge
below, it would only be giving authority
to a new Court, and that would be the
Court of "Mob Law" Mr.. Ryan introdu-
|ced many authorities to substantiate his
position, and upon the whole, he made
such an argument as only alearned man
can.
Mr.. Payne contended that the writ of
arrest was not legal, and that Judge Smith
had authority to grant the writ Of habeas
corpus, and that this court had jurisdiction
IN the matter. He argued that State
Courts had the authority to interfere with
United States Courts to protect its citizens
where the process was void. That our
State Courts were our only protection, and
that protection which was granted to us by
the constltlon Of the United States, viz. the
writ OF ha6eas corpus. He also contended
that the Fugitive Slave Law" was uncon-
stltutlonal, therefore it was no law at
all, and was binding upon no one. Mr..
Payne conducted the case well, and the O.
plnlon is, that Mr.. Ryan found it no little
task to answer his argument. The Case
during all its hearing has been listened to
with marked attention, and [ doubt not
but that the opinion Of the court. let them
decide which way they will, will BEL sound
one. The Supreme Court is still in SEES
sion, but its business attracts no narticular
attention.
The United States District Court has
been IN session here for the last ten DAYS.
but adjourned Yesterday morning. Many