Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-08-01

"a. That the State Courts have no authority 10
issue writs OF haOeas corpus IN cases "heIo wy
,ficers Of the general government are conooInou
In other words, the officer Is not oouhu % 'esPv''
nnv such writ, md legally resist it, even to the
death of those who hold the process OF the state
Courts. And this denial 10y State authority is
general, unqualified, and sweeping. 1t Is only nee
essary Ter such to say, 81 am a Marshal OF the
unitee States" and, no matter what he does, no
matter how ruthlessly he violates the personal
Fights of our people or outragcs the law Of the
State, he must go scot free, and no authority ex
lists in a State to bring him to account or compel
him to show that he has legal authority for his
acts.
1t is not so much our purpose to discuss the
question of United States authority as it is to vim
dictate the habeas corpus act OF Ohio. we nave
stated its spirit and intent and have given it's
words. If an officer of the United States will not
obey the mandate Of a writ then it is to be served
by a Sheriff. That is the only innovation 1t
simply secures the manifest purpose and design o..
II writ of habeas corpus, 1t brings tue person
who is charged with being deprived of his liberty
unlawfully, before a competent tribunal, 10 acor'
tain,if that charge be true,
Suppose Que of the Deputy Marshals Of Cincin,
natl should come to Columbus, and seize one OF
eur we'll known colOred citizens, for the purpose OF
getting him to a slave State and selling him. Inc
person seized is known to be Il free man by thou
sands of our own people. 1t is apparent that inc
Marshal has no legal authority, and some one
uokca affidavit of that fact. and writ Of habeas
cornns is issued. Under the decision of Judge
Lea, itt the State Courts can issue no paper that a
Marshal is bound to respect. lie refuses to recog-
nize the summons, aud attempts to carry away his
nrisonor. If there is reason to apprehend that
such will be the conduct Of the officer, the Judge ia
directed to issue this writ to the Sheriff, who is re-
CURED TO orlnG .no tiisolut' So Gen. ~ h, ns tho
ms decision "lnp.pS 'nav Nv rhich tho Marshal is
iisnt "-issuo d liz w. not onsvcroLIc r. onv
pouhu " lesponu' v,hother bo has Iogol nm.
snch Uiouu"' III w "D''"' 49, >" o
thority or not
The naked statenent Of this proposition is so
monstrous that it will be evaded If possible
How ? By affirming that II the Marshal hau no
legal writ he had no authority, and that he wouiu
not in that case be protected by a ohiteu states
Court. And this brings us to the very point
Hoio IcW the State Court kho'c VhetheF me ma,y"a'
has any authority if he refuses TO dnSwer! HOW
can it be ascertaincd whether that of1cer is III pcs
session of his proper papers to justify his ACTON
unless some power exists to call MN 10 account NJ
least SO far as TO show his authority? H. when ne
is brought before the state Court ne PTouuocS "
warrant from Il proper oihcer, requiring MIN "
take the prisoner for somo oftense known 10 the
laws, land running away from slavery Is one OF
them then the parties must at once De reieaseG'
The jurisdiction OF the state Court Is at an emu
The object OF the writ OF hsoeaS corpus na' oeen
accomplished Inc oneer mas SEoa" go'" 20 I"''
my ~
not believe a judge IN ONO where these lac'S "
clearly shown, would discharge a PRISONER Iom
the Marshal. lie might tIihN that lno =" nM
oppressive. wrong, ana ought 10 DC repedleu. nuS
he would very clearly transcend ms nutnorlty,ant
make himself liable, II ne shoulu lail u teepec'
the legal process Of a United States Court IN the
hand Of a United States oMcor'
Ir howovor u sbonld onnear upon the examina-
- ,Tot ,he ogicer had nc. authority, but was
act;na wrongfullv, oppressiYely, and in violation
Of tbe r;ghts of n citizen of Ohio, it would very
ooaJu hs tho dut, of ,he Judpe to discharge tho
nr;soDo fron custody . and there would be tho enc
apf tba cose
w. oaL. .ho nor so,so ;ndoment of anv ma,
g ,b,s ;s not The nroner remedy? What cooC
reason is there wbv it should not be recognized
What poyer or duty on the part of the United
States is infringed or disturbed for a moment
Before the writ can issue, good cause must b.
shown. The United States tribunals have NJ
RIGHT 10 Dresuae that the State Courts will violat'
n law of Congress, and refuse to recognize the OBJ
liqatiors of the federal compact. State Judge
arc lust as much supposed to act in good faith
and with an eye to their oaths to support the Con
%stitution, &C., as are the Judges Of the Unite,
States Courts. When, therefore a proper repre-
seltation is made that a citizen of Ohio is held
prisoner by a person calling himself Il marshal
without due process of law when it is shown b
affidavit or otherwise, to the satisfaction OF tn
Judge, that the prisoner, in the language Of GU
btnlult, ii uHthtI ttJ bNIE'tNo N'S"'Vi -
not only the plain legal right, but the bounde
duty of the State Judge to issue the writ of hf
beas corpus. And it is just as much the duty 2
the State Judge to issue the writ OF habeas corpus
And tits just as much the dI'y OF the Narsn II
to respond by showing the Judge the process D
virtue OF Wh'ch ne nous tne ptl'I.,oi III 80
a little decent respect Ior inc ota'e authori'lt
will avoid all collision why shouIu NOT tue MA
s6al show tins Difference to our law! 1t o1es not pr
pose to depFtce MIN OF a parIcie Oh autnoI,ty' "
only to acertaIn ~te"eT ne mas u. ii ne mas no
then clearly the prisoner ought to be dlsclarge'
If he has, then the State Judge has no farsh'
jurisdiction, but must demand the prisoner to II
custody Of the marshal, who may at once 80 h
way.
We have read all that has been said about Il
necessity of the United States protecting it's Ma
sbnls. of yindicating its jurisdiction, &c. "
have not a word of opposition to the entire hon
w.. But, we ask Judge Leayitt, and all the defe
Gers of his decision, how tie State Comts are
LJRo,g that the .nHshdL has his authority, If he +