Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-07-18
WHOLE NO. GA.


by their official oaths, were under positive and
obligation to retain their prisoners, end
% oppose all attempts to rescue them. The prison.
,rs were lawfully in their custody, and they would
lave been derslic in duty to have parted with that
,ussody unless compelled to do so by an overpow-
,ring physical force. The Sheriff had writ
which commanded him 10 take the prisoners from
he custody of these officers of the United Statee
It was not the usual and well known writ of
taJeds corpus, Summoning the party, having the
alleged unlawful custody of the persons named in
the writ to have them before the officer issuing it,
with the cause of their detention, but writ re-
quring them to be taken, fOrcibly if necessary,
from those having the prior and lawful custody
This was the only way of serving the writ; and
the question, whether il could be served was
simply question of power. So the Sheriff under
stood it, and hence he and his assistants deliber-
ately armed themselves as preparation for the,
conflict, which they was inevitable. In serv-
ing the writ their first object was to do what the
writ required. namely, TO take the prisoners from
the custody of the Deputy Marshals Counting,
probably on the active cooperation Of the prison
ers, they made this attempt. 1t is altogether i'm
material whether the Sheriff, coming up with
the United States officers, announced his official
character, or that he had writ requiring him to
take the prisoners. If such announcement were,
made (which is doubtful from the weight of the,
testimony, il an idle form, which the Den.
uties were not bound to respect. and which oan,
have no influence in the decision of this question.
!
they had quietly surrendered their prisoners upon
such notice.
1t is apparent, from facts not in controversy,
that the Sheriff and his assistants well understood
how the writ was to be served. They were ap-
prised that mere statement that they were Off
GERS Of the State of Ohio, and had writ of habeas
corpus for the prisoners, would come altogether
short of the exigency of the writ They knew
that nothing but the actual capture of the priso-
ners and their col sorea custody would answer its
demands. Hence the first movement was the
sezing, by the assistant of the Sheriff of the bri-
die Of the horse in the foremost carriage. lie was
resisted in this attempt and Immediately aimed his
revolver at the Deputy; and if he did not actually
fire, it is beyond all question he made the attempt.
Whether he fired, or made the attempt, the officer
whose life was thus put at hazard had un-
doubted right in selfdofence to disable his as
sailant, and was fully justified in firing at hiHa
with this view 1t may lie noticed here as
throwing some light the intention Of the Sher-
f and his assistant, that the Sheriff states his
impression that his assistant, as he drove past
the rear carriages pointed his pistol from the car
riage in which he rode thus giving a very signif-
cant indication of what might be expected if the
prisoners were not peacably surrendered.
But it is said the Sheriff was most wantonly
injured in this aifray. In his oral testimony he
states that after leaving his buggy, he approached
the carriage in which Churchill rode, with pistol
in hand, prepared to fire, and intending to FIRE. at
other witnesses in their affadavis, And il is also
proved beyond doubt that it was when the Sheriff
was thus approaching CHURCHILL that the latter
seized him, with the sole view of disarming him,
and thus saving his own or the life of another per-
son. 1t is greatly to be regretted that the Sheriff
was severely injured in this roncounter but if
any fact is established in this case it is that these
injuries resulted from the severe conflict in the at-
tempt to disarm him. In such contest the de-
gree of force which may be used cannot be gradu-
ated with absolute precision.
If the writ put into the hands of the Sheriff had
been issued in good faith, and were the we'll known
writ of hd6eaS corpuS, requiring the Deputy Mar
shals to produce the bodies of the prisoners for
the purpose of inquiring into the cause of their
detention, it would have been the duty of those
officers to take the persons before the Judge. If
not as q matter of legal obligation, the courtesy
due to the authorities Of another jurisdiction
would have required this. In doing this they
would have retained the possession Of the prison
ers as no State Judge, it may be presumed, would
have authorized their discharge wheD it was made
known to him that they were held under valid
United States authority. But, as before noticed.
the writ under the extraordinary Chic law Of 1856,
requiring the officer to whom it is directed to take
the prisoners no matter by whom or by what Gu-
thority they are detained, is wholly different
thing. This act seems to have been inconsiderete.
ly passed, and in its practical execution must lead
to frequent conflicts between the National and
State authorities. 1t might, with great propriety.
be designated act to prevent the execution of
the laws Of the United States within the State Of
Ohio
II seems clear that the Deputy Marshals were
right; under the circumstances OF this case, in
sistng the attempt to the prisoners from
their custody. Judge Nelson one Of the Justices
Of the Supreme Court of the United States, has
stated the law on tins point with great force and
accuracy. While he comedies that there may be
cases in which State Judge will be justified in
0raptinU "a lnbpAs for a prisOnar in n0nfpa-
ment under United States process, he asserts that
if the process is legal the officer having the person
i n charge will not be justified nssurrendering that
custody under and circumstances. The learned
Judge says 'In such case that is where the griss-
oner is in fact held under process issued by Fed
eral tribunal under the Consultation, or Law Of
the United States, or treaty, ii is tie duty If an
officer not TO gre him mp TO allole him 10 pass
from his hands at Gny stage Of the proceedin9s.-
He should stand upon his authority; and if resist
ed maintain it with all the power conferred him
for that purpose" Il Blatchford's Rep. 635).-
Even in cases where there is concurrent jurisdic-
ton in the General Government and State, it is
well settled both by the adudeations Of the FEEDER.
al and State Courts that the tribunal to which the
jurisdiction first attaches shall retain it, In tho
case FIX parte Jenkins before cited Judge Grier
says "Where persons and property are liable to
seizure aud arrest by tie process of both, that
which first attached should have the preference
Any attempt OF either to take them from the legal
custody Of the officers of the other would be IN.
justi6able exercise of its pnwev, aud lead to most
! Ideplorablc consequences" Such is the Law whsrs
there is an admitted concurrent jurisdirton.-
With how much greater force does it apply. where
the right or power exercised is exclusive IN the
United States?
| 1t cannot be necessary to notice further the 10
gal points arising in the case, or the numerou.
facts set forth il the afldayits, The conclusion,
indicated seem to be fully sustained by the law and
the facts. There ia, however general view of the
case that leaves no doubt rs 10 the real charac-
ter of the transaction involved, 1t cannot be con
trovered, that there was settled purpose 10 az
! lInost n norton of the community in which these
occurrences took place to prevent either by direct
9 ar indirect meaps, the execution of law of the
: United Statos. Four persons had been arrested;
under legal process FOR 70 ,h an aIleSsa vGlaGn o.
0 There is known to exist in the counties to which