New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-06-15

George Z Pugb esq., objected 10 tbs, on Personss
and local grounds and tie Court decided thar Is tns
Msrshars evidence was reouthve 20 wna. sse ~,
tine 10 rebuff the rebuitye would De contfay " F'-
tom ard exceedingly announcement A..
The Attorncy-Gen.r said he bad received q tee
graph from the Governor announcing that his PREF
ence was imperaivey required a, Columbus, and that
be would be compelled 10 leave on the evening tfsn
twas agreed between the opposing counsel thar
the Attorney General should make his argumeR, upon
any day AFTER his retur-.
ARGUMENT OF GRO. ,. pvcH, Lsa
The argument was then opened BY George f.. PSyh,
ESQ. for the United States MsrShals. lie said this
case was one OF the utmost importance and grsvest
consideration and coutended that any United states
officer arrested for carrying Out the laws OF the United
States can be released by wit OF hsbeas corpus
from United States Court,
Here a. il was after / CLOCK. the Court rose pad
in the afternoon.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Mr. Pueh resumed his speech. The act OF iSSs he
said forbid the Marshal 10 obey the order Of Stas
Judge and as construed by the Pennsylvania judges;
forbid the Judges 10 give sueh an order ne teetfsI
10 the decision in the Rosetta case ana the Nisconss
Judges. He contended that the proceedings were M
valid under the United States laws, and Noi under
the laws Of Ohio.
This whole proceeding he said, alnos; amounted 20
treason 10 an armed resistance to the laws o, tAs
United States.
Mr.. NAsos's srEXcH.
Mr. Mason said he agreed with the gentleman who
had preceded him. in the vast importance OF thus case
Ne former question Of collision between the State AMI
National hcers had presented just such question IS
this This presents the pure question, whether
the ofcerS Of the United stars having violated mo
law, of the State arr responsible 10 the Courts OF this
STATE OF 10 those f the United States. That was tue
saktd question. The only question involved was tho
Col duct of the Marshal toward the Sheri OF CiStks
County. 4 writ was put into the hands OF the Sherln
of Ciaike County and il was his duty 10 serve t. lie
had no official Information Of the character OF the per
sons he 10 arrest The writ was issued 10y
proper officer roper information. ana the Sheriff
not the Judge TO decide ON the innocence or gat
of the persons To be arrested.
The Courts of the United States had conceded 10 ths
State Courts the night TO require the UntSd States o
GERS to show the over by which they acted. But
these petty tliceIS looked with contempt process
of State Count. Cur State Courts emanate from ths
same rover the National Courts and shine by their
own light We are under double allegiance, and
we should respect, honor and obeythe tribunals OF
each.
The only question for determination here was,
whether these pers. Ms having committed an OFF nse IN
Clarke County, should be held Tor uial IN ina, ooony
before the Courts If the State, whose laws they Lad
violated.
Tie rext point was the extent 10 which Judge ot
the United States Court sitting ON case OF hsoeaS
copus could oyerrule the decisions of State Court.
He cited the decision IT Judge Nelson that the United
States officers must show their authority.
He denied that this affair is conspiracy. The evil
dence of conspiracy was on the other side TweiVe
armed men went TO a quiet rural village to capture
four peaceful men. The law they went to execute
was harsh, cruel ay. In enforcing It, they should
least have paid some respect TO The feelings OF IN,
people. But they used unnecessary yobence-refased
10 show their writ. The men arrested were peaceabie,
respectable men, eud would have readily come, had
the officers 81 owed their authority. Mr. Nj. anayzed
the evidence AT length showing that the officers were
harsh and drunken, and abusive; that the Sheriff OF
Clarke County did announce his office aud business.
and that be dsre garded and abused. Subsequent
events had nothing 10 do with the case. -.
a 81 I'D Ix IN
This was passed TO meet the eXigences OF South Caro-
Ina notification. This had no application to this case.
II was not against the laws OF the United States, Tor ia
officers to be required to show their authority, but 1t
was in conformity with the decisions of its Courts for
them 20 to do fhe'Shertf of Clarke County required
them 10 violate law OF the United States, but rather
10 obey them.
II belonged 10 our State Courts TO decide on the
guilt of these men, This Court could not discharge
them without determining the question OF their guilt
When Will this question Of conflict of jurisdiction end
If these men arc discharged Ii this Court decides
that must protect its officers in all their acts, the
State Courts would claim equal power. Discharge
these men, and what would be the next step In
their pride of power they would have the Sheriff OF
Clarke County arrested for interfering with them inc
COurt Of that county would release the Shefli on
writ - habcas corpus. This Court would call upon
The President for force To execute its warrants Inc
State Court would call upon the Governor for force 10
execute IFS warrants And then should have cisI
war with all it, horrors. The only way was Tor each
Court to respect the warrants Of the other, AMI thus
avoid al! collisions.
The lion. Mr. Mason closed his speech and tue
Court adjourned
The u csiOn was reserved.
FRIDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
Stanley Matthews, esq, al iressed the Cou't at
encth OF behalf OF the United states Marshals "hea
the Court adjourned sine de.
The next fe. sion of the Court says The CRcinnati
gazette opens on Tuesday next. The coming week.
probably, the argument will be closed.