New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-04
STATE NIGHTS OUTRAGED.

Commissioner Pendery-who, with the temptation
before BIN Of an extra five dollars, of course de-
cided against the fugitives-bas excited very gen
eral surprise; is the surprise less general that
the Ohio Sheriff should have conformed to this
decision, without stopping to inquire what the
tribunals whose sworn officer he is ight think
about it, or whether or not they might sntertain
the same views as TO his and their rights and duties
in the premises, with those promulgated by the
District Judge.
Itcertanly seems very add that an Ohio Sheriff
should thus implicitly submit to be taught his duty
BY the Judge of foreign tribunal; and we are not
a little curious to see what steps will be taken BY
the authorities of Ohio to perform their duty and
10 yndicate their rights. For, that the rights Of
the State of Ohio and the respect due to her crimi
nal process have been most grossly trampled
der foot BY those nsoent United States officials,
very few, we think. will question. This is a point
upon which we suspect lawyers, statesmen and
men Of common sense will all agree in reaching
the same conclusion, and that without any difficulty
whatever.
Judge Leayitt, in his published opinion, does not
over this audacious insult, this humliating blow at
the sovereignty of Ohio. He admits that if the
"oueston as to the rightful custody of these four
"persons could be controlled and governed with
exclusive reference to the rights asserted by
"their owner and claimant" he "shOuld have no
"hesitancy in holding that these rights could not
abe protected at the hazard Of infringing upon the
"riehts and dignity Of the State of Ohio" Look
ing at the Fugitive Slave law as intended merely
for the preservation Of the rights of the master, Mr.
Justice Leavt fully admits that cannot be setup
for a moment against the criminal law of Ohio. In
order tosustan that decision he is obliged to look at
the Fugitive Slave Act in quite another light; to see
it d" in different and far more imposing aspect.
What that different and far more imposing
aspect" is he does not inform us in express terms
He leaves that to be inferred from his decision and
his action. From such evidence as these afford
he would seem to regard the Fugitive Slave Act
not so much as intended to protect the cOnstitu-
tonal rights of the master as great political trl-
umph of the Shareholders and sayedriyers over the
Free States and Free principles of the NOrth-a
sort Of badge of conquest and subsection imposed
upon us, like that annual payment of chosen
youths and virgins to be devoured by the MinOtaur,
which MnOs of Crete is said TO have levied upon
the conquered Athenians. However this act may
generally be regarded at the North as ''ineXpcdi
ent, unjust and oppressive" Judge Leayitt-and
no doubt there were similar tools OF despOtism
among the Athenians-is fully of opinion that it
must be quietly and patiently submitted to till our
Cretan masters-thOse who dominate over Con-
gress, or those who dominate over the Supreme
Court of the United States-shall fit to release
us from it.
Such appears to be the doctrine upon which Mr..
Justice Leavitt bases his decison-a decision
which he attempts to buttress up by course Of
augmentation not less extraordinary than the doe
trine itself.
"In holding. az | must do in this case that the
right of the Marshal to the CUSTODY of the persons ia
question must be respected, am not to be understood
as asserting that fugitive slave Is not responsible ior
a violation of the criminal laws of the state to which
he NAV have fed. Ii is the undOubted right OF every
State to punish crime committed within its limits.
State destitute of this right in its frees and fullest
exercise could have no just claim to sovereignty And
il an escaped slave could violate law with impunity.
many States Of this Union would be IN deienseiess
conGition Ii not asserted therefore, that they
not liable to punishment, but merely that If they
in custody OF officer, under q law of the United
States before their arrest for crime against the State
law the latter arrest cannot be enforced till the dsa
biIity existing by the prior arrest is removed In other
words, the slave being i'll custody OF an officer acting
under the authority of another and, for the purposes
of this question, foreign jurisdiction, he cannot,
by the force ola subsequent arrest, be delivered
from such custody.
1t has been laid down as an axiom of physics
Al ~ bod ha in mia
once; but this doctrine does not apply to Judge
Leayitt In the very same breath in which he
admits that a State destitute of the right 4" in its
freest and fullest exercise Furnishing crimes com
mitted within its borders by fugitive slaves
"could have no just claim TO sovereignty" He
held that provided some claimant-perhaps
claimant trumped up for the occasion in collision
with the criminal-whO perhaps merely pretends to
10 be fugitive slaye-can but succeed in nabting
him first the State is ousted of its jurisdiction,
stripped of its sovereignty and must submit to see
this criminal taken ont its own Jail and carried out
of its limits with no other reliance for yindca,ing
its laws and asserting its sovereignty except the
poor privilege of trusting to the "comity' Of o
slaveholdng Governor to surrender for trial slave
who before he can be asked for will surely be sold
out of the State, and whom the State of Chic
might pursue from State TO State till doomslay
without the slightest chance Of ever laying hands
upon him.
The reasoning OfJudge Leavitt upon this subject
of the DENIAL upon the Governor of Kentucky, is
queer specimen of his knowledge of law; and We
give it, that oar readers may see how very small a
provision of that sort will answer as an outfit 70 a
slavecatchng District Judge: