The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1857-07-13
NATIONAL VS.. STATE RIGHTS.
The Collision Of the United States Officers and
the authorities Of Ohio.
The Clarke County Rescue Case
JUDGE LEAWrT'S DECISION.
Une United states MarshaIs Taken FL ON the
Custody Of the Sheriff Of Clarke
County and Discharged.
from the Cincinnati Gazette, July 10

From the Cincinnati Gazette, July 10
ExpipTE sIrFoRD MARSHAL 'Er--HABEAs CORPUS.
There is no cause to regret the indulgence which
has been extended to counsel, in the presentation
and discussion OF this case, or the time which, for
not necessary 10 be stated has elapsed since
the hearing commenced. In some aspects the ques
beraton in their decision. Every case Of conflict
between the ma ional and State authorities casts
upon the Judge or court called to pass upon 1t a
most responsible duty. And such cases are the
more embarrassing and difficult, when the jurisdc-
ton of Judge court is challenged, and a decision
of that question becomes necessary. 1t has been my
aim to consider with camness the case before me,
and to render such conclusions as my Judgment will
approve. II have succeeded in this the criticisms
of those differing from me in my view will, trust,
have disturbing influence.
On the 29th OF May last Lewis n. Sfford, the
Marshal of the United States for the Southern dis
tct Of Ohio presented his petition, duly sworn to,
for writ of habeas corpus, alleging, among other
things that Benjamin p Churchill and nine others,
beng Deputy and Assistan, Marshals were unlaw
fully imprisoned in the Jail of Clarke county by pro-
issued by Justice Of the Peace Of said county,
for acts done, or omitted to be done by them, as
such deputies and assistants in the proper discharge
of their duties under law. and by the authority of
the United States. writ OF habeas corous was
issued, according to the prayer OF the petition, d.
rected to John E. Layton, Sheriff of said Clarke
county. requiring him to have the said Churchill
and others forthwith before this court. with the
cause of their caption and detention. The Sheriff
has promptly obey ed the writ and has made a spe-
sldtlLg tue CuCuIllstduCts unucT VIII III
the deputies and assistants were delivered into his
CUSTODY. The important questions arising in the
case are presented motion for the discharge of
these persons.
The facts necessary to be noticed, preliminary to
the consideration of the points presented are that
the 23d of May last separate warrants were issued
by Edward X. Newhall, Commissioner of the CIR
cult Court OF the United States for the arrest OF
Hiram Guthrdge and three other persons, residents
of Cha npsign.. county. charges Of having aided
and allotted fugitive slave in his escape and
having resisted and obstructed the officers of the
United States in the arrest OF such fugitive The
persons named in the warrants were arrested by tue
Deputy Marsbais an assistants; and when convey
ing them TO Cincinnati, where the warrants were re-
tulnsble, en- attempt was made by the Sheriff Of
Clarke county 10 take said prisoners from the Gus
tody Of the officers, by habeas corpus issued by the
Probste Judge of Champagne county. The Sheriff,
in his return to the nabeas corpus issued to hi n
from this Court, alleges that the writ issued by the
PROBATE Judge was put into his hands for execu-
ton by the Sheriff OF Champaign county, and
that, IN company With one Compton assist
ant be attempted to serve it, by taking possession
OF the four prisoners in the custody of the Deputy
Msrshais aud their assistants, and that in this at
tempt be violently resisted and assaulted and
failed to execute the writ according to its nmand.
IL appears that q complaint made before one
Huston, Justice Of the Peace Of Clarke county,
that the deputies and their assistants had unlaw-
fully assaulted and beat the said Sheriff, they were
subsequently seized by large armed force and
taken before the said Justice and by him committed
to the jail OF Clarke county; and while 80 in custody
sault on the Sheriff with intent to kill and for shoot
ing at said Compton with intent to kill &C., before
one Christie Justice of the Peace for said county,
on which they were again arrested and committed
80 jail.
IL may be noticed here, that after the seizure of
the DEPUTY Marshals by the armed force as above
stated, and the consequent rescue OF the prisoners
from their possession, they were taken by the Sheriff
of Green county before the Probate Judge Of Cham.
paigp by virtue Of the habeas corpus issued by him,
and were summarily discharged by bis order, and
have since been al large.
In considering the questions before me, shall not
attempt TO review the extended and abe arguments
Of the counsels notice ali the points raised In the
discussion. 1t has been insisted very strenously,
that this court cannot order the discharge Oh tue
Deputy Marshas on the ground that at the time the
writ OF habeas corpus was served the Imprisonment
alleged as existing when the writ issued had eased,
and they were then in custody, on process after
point further than TO remark that from the return
of The Sheriff Of Clarke county. il would seem at
least doubtful whether at the time OF the service OF
the habeas corpus the deputies were in Gus ody un
der the first or the second warrant. There seems to
have been continuous custody under these Warrants
and il would be some what technical in such case
as this TO base an order for demanding the deputies
on the ground stated.
IL is also urped-and this Il the main point of the
argument of the counsel resisting the discharge of
the persons in custodythat as IL appears from the
return to the habeas corpus that tncy are Ia cnsto
dy under pr lcess issued by Justice OF the Peace,
regular and lawful on its face ths court has no ia
rsdcton 70 20 behind that process aud Inquire Tor
what cause and under what circumstances II is-
sued
Il is admitted that, IN reference TO the writ OF
baheas corpus issued by the courts judges Of the
United States, under the judiciary act OF 1853, tue
position assumed is undoubtedly correct The re-
turn Il the officer showing q detention under pro-
oeas legal and valid on It's face, would be conclusive,
and preclude the court or Judge from further inqui
~. But the h8Deas corpus now IN question was Is
sued under the Ith section OF the at OF the "a OF
whieh nraVidea Ntnat either of the ms
tees Of the Supreme Court, or judge OF any Dis
trict Court in addition TO the authority already con
ferred by law, shall have power to grant wnts OF
habeas corpus IN all cases OF prisoner or prisoners
in Jail or confinement, when ne or they shall be CON-
miited or confined or by any authority Of law for
any act done or omitted 10 he done in pursuance Of
law OF the United states, or any order process,
or decree Of any judge or court thereof-anythlng
in any act Of Congress TO the contrary no.with'
stanoIng."
intelliqible that there would seem to be no room
for doubt ss TO their meaning. They do con-
fer and were intended TO confer, on federal
juoge the power TO issue the writ OF habeas cor
pos wi enever there rs an Imprisonment, by any
authority Of law for any act done omitted, under
a law OF the United States Now the point TO be
inquired into and determined by the Judge issuing
the habeas corpus IL, whether the a,t Ior whcn
discharge Of official duty, under the authority
contemplated by the provision referred TO. But
II the return 10 the writ, showing an imprisonment
under State process shuts out all further inquiry.
the act Of Congress Is dead letter, and Its purpose
altogether defeated.
Tbe occasion Of the passage Of the act Of Congress
of 1888 has been referred TO- and IL u contended in
areusent that IL must he limited in it, operation TO
sate OF things similar 10 that then existing; and
was intended only 10 guard against notification when
A appesred in the form 81 resistance by State autho
rity 10 the revenue laws Of the United States. II
was doubtless such threaeDe resistance that called
fhe law into being. Bot Il has been permitted 10
main the statute book, IN full iorce, Tor upwards
of twenty Eve years. This has not been the result
of ACCIDENT or inadvertence. IL was obvious 10
the members Of Congress, and the statesmen,
mated In the afasrs Of the country that II a wise
nroyision and necessary 10 meet any subsequent
case OF improper interference by State with the
legislation OF Congress, In matters pertaining 70
tbe national government and within the range of