Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1857-06-05
CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION AHorHER
= AeLAVH CASE. M#f -


- AeLAvHcAsE. M#
We give in another column the detailsof
most outras eous violation of the rights Of
citizens, undercolor ofexecutingthe Fugitive
Slave Law. We want all men 70 read il
and learn o what indienities they are liable,
In this land Of freedom, for simply refusing
to help catch a negro. We have no doubt
the Deputy Marshals have the law on their
side, as TO the arrest Of the citizens Of Ohio
That Fugitive Slave Lswlis the perfection of
oppression and tyranny II not only taxes
the people with the expense Of returning
the,fugitives, but jeopardizi ng the rights and
liberty Of white men who refuse TO obey the
commands of slave-catchers
The Marshals were wrong however, in
disobeying the writ Of the State Court, and
in assaulting the officers, and we very much
doubt whether the State Of Ohio will hold
them guiltless. They should have obeycd
thewrit, and appeared before the state court,
which court could not, we think, have re-
leased the prisoners who. were held under
arrest on writ from the United States Com
missioners Such is the common sense
view Of this subject and such was Judge
McLeans decision in the Gaines case at
Cincinnati 4.a saf faf 2ssI 81
What, say you, may man be wres ted
! from his home and family, hand-cuffed and
fettered, aud carried to another state FOR a
trial for an offense committed I'M his state
snd that offtnse simply refusing TO help
catch negro We so understand the law
Such is the teaching of the decision of Judg.
es Of the supreme court Judge Mclean, in
the matter OF er garte Robinson, April,
1855, gives the following views
Estate rights are invoked BY the counsel.
| III these rights are construed to mean sub
version of the Federal authorities, they may
he somewhat in danger That the common
power has jurisdiction in this case il clear.
| While duly engaged in the investigation OF
the matter, the honorable Judge Of the
| Common Pleas, whose motives by no means
| question, by ha6eas corpus, took from the
custody Of the Marshal the body of the fu-
ritive, which left the Commissioner without
case II wrested from him, without eny
authority Of law, the subject Of his prcce-
dent Had any Commissioner or Federal
Judge interposed, and, by the same means,
had disregarded and disturbed the jurisdic-
ton OF the State Court should have felt
not less concern than the eloquent counsel.
A sense of duty compels me to say that the
proceedings OF the honorable Judge were
not onty without authority of law, but against
law; and that the proceedings are void, and
/ am bound TO treat them as nudity. 81
I The supreme court met the point square
ly and fully in the case of er partc jenkins
2 Wallace, 525: ~ 81 ~ 9taN
aThe jurisdiction OF the courts Of the
United States is limited, but within Its linn
its, supreme. Tho State courts have often
in many cases, concurrent jurisdictsor
over the same subjects and persons; bu
neither can treat the other as an inferior ju
risdictinn, except in the cases where The
Constitution and the acts OF Congress hav,
given such power 10 the courts Of the United
States. When persons or property are Ii
abel TO seizure or arrest by the process o
both, that which first attaches whould have
1.-THE preference. Any attempt Of the Officers
Of the othor would be an unjustifiable exer
else Of power, and lead 10 the most deplora
die consequences. Therefore, aperson b.
Imprisoned under the civil or criminal process
Of one the othercannot take him from sucl
custody in order to subject him to punish
ment for an offense against them. A fhgl
tive cannot be taken from the legal custod.
Of The Sheriff, by any warrantfrom the court
OF the United States, in order 10 extradition
under the act Of Congress. Neither can sucl
, fugitive, when In custody Of the Marshal
, under the legal process from Judge o
Commissioner Of the United States, DO dc
livered from such custody by means Of
hdbeds corpus, or any other process, TO an
/ swer for an ohense against the State, whe:t
J Ter felony or misdemeanor, OF for any othe
purpose"
Thsis the decision, notof a majority, bu
Of all the Jupges Of the United States 81
preme Court 1t applies in every point b
/, the case at Xenia
Hence we say the law is on the side {
the Marshals, and such we believe will b
the decision in this case, yet the America
, people sustain thaflaw, for the sake of SUI
. tanning the party When we endorse it, G
support its endorsers, when we cease
write against it, or speak against it, in ever
! place where our voice can be heard, ma
/ our right hand forget her cunning and OF
!. tongue cleaye to the roof of our mouth. Ye
|. while it is law, it must be respected, eth'
r by obedience or by submitting to its pena
A ties--but we would die before we would ODE
one Of itsunholy, unchristian, despotic ma
y dates,--and we shall never ceas to call Il
I. attention Of Christian freemen 10 its iniqu
A ties and cruelties until II ceases to disgra'
e and polute the statute Of christian Americ
That law ,ciibe, must be, shall Be Repealed