Marshall County Democrat. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1855-1859, 1857-07-23
Decision i'm the Ohio Habeas
Corpus of the U. s. Mar
shall.


Cincinnati Enquirer contains the full re-
port of the able and timely decision of
Judge Leavitt in this case. 1. is docu.
ment which will meet with the respect and
approval of every good citizen who desires
the triumph of autherity and law in all our
national relations We find the following
synopsis Of he decision in that paper;
which was upon the eleven Ohio Uni
ted Safes Deputy Marshals. who had been
arrested and held in custody by the Sherii
.of Clark couiy. of that Safe:
There is not theislightess vagueness or
evasiveness in this decision. 1t meets full
ly, squarely and plumply uvery question
raised in his extraordinary case. The
right and authority Of the United States of
fcers to resist and disregard all State pre-
cesses, while engaged in the service of the
wri,s of the United States tribunals; their
duty to prevent. by any degree of force.
any interruption in the performance of their
duties; the exclusive jurisdiction Of the
United States Courts, of all matters arising
uader the act OF Congress providing for the
reclamation of fusitives from labor; the
violation of the sovereignty of the United
States, which would be involved in
any attempt to execute the extraordinary
act of the Ohio Legislature, giving the
State Courts authority to issue wri.s Of
habeas corpus against all parties delaining
persons for any cause, were most luciIly
and ably exposed
Under tlis act of the Legislature all at
tempts to enforce the jurisdiction and laws
of the United States might be defeated.
Under this law any friend or accomplice of
a party in The custody Of the Marshal, for
robbing the mail or counterfeiting the coin
of the United States, might obtain his re-
lease by suing out a hoJeas corpus; and. in
case It's service we're resisted-as it was
the duty Of the Marshal to resist any such
process--the latter might be arrested and
detained in Jail for assault and battery,
and bis prisoner be taken off to some
other county and released.
Judge Leavitt unhesita;ingly decided
that the Marshals were justified in resisting
the service of the writ in the hands of Law
) ton, and that no more force was used then
was necessary to overcome the violence of
Of the Sheriff and his assistant He saw
nothing to censure or condemn in the con-
duet of the officers
He said that whatever prejudices might
exis. in the community against the duty OF
all good citizens to obey the law, and il
must be enforced. This duty, the OBJ
legations imposed by the Constitution. the
relations which the States lad agreed TO
bear 10 one another. were e-most eloquenl,y
dwslt upon and illustrated.
The conclusion of The decision was. that
the Deputy Marshals be released from The
custody Of the Sheriff of Clark comfy.
Thus ends, so far as the decisions of the
United States Court are concerned. this ex-
citing case, which presents the most au-
daeous attempt to nulIify the acts of con-
gress, and trampe upon The authority OF
the Federal Government, that has occur
red since the Union was formed. 1t had
; the countenace Of the Governor of the
State, and was insliga,ed by his special
; friends. 1t was supported and encouraged
the poor ignorant fanatics Of some Of the
omst benighted corners Of the State in their
criminal resis tance to the United States
authority, by styling the service of the
writs of the Federal Judiciary "a man
hunt;" but they iibeled most grossly and
cowardy the Official engaged in the disohar-
ge of their duty.
l