The Washington union. [volume] (City of Washington [D.C.]) 1857-1859, 1857-06-19
INTENT upoN A coLLIsIoN.


shed, and perhaps human life been sacrificed. A
slave escaped from Kentucky to Ohio, whittier his
owner followed and procured warrant from Uni
ted States commissioner for his arrest. The United
States marshal under the statute of Congress- arrest
cd the slave, and proceeding to take him before
the officer as required by the writ While this was
being done, large number Of persons assembled,
and with force and arms the slave taken from
his custody and made his escape. Here was an ex-
press violation of the law of Congress, as well as
breach Of the peace, punishable alike under the
State and national law by fine and imprisonment
while under the latter the aggressors were liable for
the injury committed upon private rights. The mar
shall was executing judicial process and under the
laws of all countries, such resistance is a high of
fence and is generally punished with marked Sc
verify. With the view of indicating the suprem-
acy Of the law, and bringing its vioators TO the pun
ishment provided by it, process was thereupon is
sued against those who had resisted the execution of
lawful process and placed in the marshals hands
for execution, pursuant to the laws Of Congress.
Under such process the marshals officers arrested
four volators ofhe laws of the national government
While they were taking these persons charged with
crime before the officer issuing the warrants, and
raised, and those arrested on criminal charges duly
made under oath, were taken from the custody of
the officers having them in lawful charge and set
Free while great violence visited upon the mar
shall officers Here was second violation of the
statutes Of Congress- well breach of the peace
under the laws of Ohio presenting second instance
of the nterpostion of brute force and dangerous
weapons to prevent the execution of laws constitu-
tionally enacted by Congress- The crime of the ag-
gressors did not end here Among the persons en-
gagged in resisting the laws was State sheriff. who
claimed to have State habeas corpus but instead of
serving it according to law, by delivering a copy
and citing the marshal to show cause by what au-
thorty he held the four persons arrested the latter
were forciby discharged, and the marshals officers
taken into custody, and We're proceeded against as
criminals under the State laws for having endeavored
to execute United States process and held to bail
answer such. The habeas corpus did not authorize
the discharge of the four arrested men. 1t simply
required him to bring their bodies before the officer
issuing it, and to show by what authority he detained
them. If, instead of releasing the prisoners and
Selling the MARSHAL the latter had been permitted to
make return that he held them by virtue Of wrts
lawfully issued by United States officer such return
would have been full justification, and even the
State officer who issued the haJeas corpus could not
lawfully have ordered their discharge while thus in
custody under another legitimate jurisdiction. But
the volators of law did not wait for any such pro-
ceedngs to occur.
But we do not design to go into the minor de-
tails and technical questions which have arisen
and been discussed in the course of this proceed
ing. We wish to deal with the great principles
which are involved, and upon which the peace and
welfare of the republic depend. We wish to call
the attention of our readers to some Of the great
questions which applicable to the matter in
hand.
1t is conceded that the fugtive-slave laws, under
which the marshal acted, constitutional and e
fective and this is the opinion of every member of
the Supreme Court, including Justices Mclean and
Curtis No one denies that the laws Of Congress
when consttutionally enacted are the supreme law
Of the land. Even where there is concurrent iurs-
diction the same civil matter or criminal Of
fence, all courts and jursts hold that the tribunal
FIRST taking cognizance has the exclusive right to
proceed in the exercise of jurisdiction. These,
among other questions, were most ably argued by
Senator Pugh before Judge Leavitt and show that
tie marshal was not only authorized, but bound to
execute the process against the slave and also that
issued against his rescuers and that in neither case
had the courts citizens Of Ohio any legal right to
interfere and prevent such execution. The act of
Congress required him to arrest the slave and bring
him before the officer issuing the process. The same
law declared il AN offence to rescue him. or to hinder
prevent the execution of such process. The same
act required due proof made, the officer to issue
process against those who had made the rescue or
obstructed the execution of process, and it also
quired the marshal to execute it. Another statute
of Congress makes it penal to obsruct the execution
of process of the United States 1t follows that, in
these instances, the INSTRUCTORS of the process of
United States officer issued under laws of Congress-
have violated statutory provisions which they
bound to obey. Why these violations of law2 Is it
because these aggressors love the liberty of slave
better than the laws and peace Of the country and
the lives Of white men?
The Kansas excitement having died out, an
other must be supplied, or the republican party sink
without the hope of resurrection hence these vo-
atons of law advised by the leaders Of that par
ty and il is even said they are justified by Gov