Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1858-01-14

der whenever the murder er may be seized by I
Federal official as a iugit i've from service before
arrest for the crime under State authority. I'm
putting no wrong intention to the Judge, am
constrained to add that his proceeding seems to
ne an abuse, rather than an exercise, Of judicial
power.
A similar case occurred more recently in the
county of Champaign. Several deputies of the
Federal Marshal, having arrested certain citi-
zens OF this State for some alleged odeuse against
the Fugitive Slave act, q writ OF HaEeas Corpus
was issued by tie Probate Judge o. that county
requiring the arrested parties To be brought be-
fore him for inquiry into the grounds of denten
ton. The Sheriff of CLARK county, while attem
pting TO execute this wr!t,was assaulted by these
re;ty officials and seriously injured: while his
deputy was fred upon; though happily without
effect. A warrant was issued by L Justice OF the
Peace for the apprehension of the perpetrators
o. these Gfenses. This warrant was duly exc
cuted and the prisoners committed to jail under
the cuS,ody OF the Sheriff Of Clark county. A
writ of hsbeas corpus was then issued by the
same District Judge who had interposcd in the
case Of Margaret Garner, requiring the Sheriff
Of Clark county to produce his prisoners before
him at Cincinnati. This writ was also obey
ed and the prisoners were discharged from Gus
tody by the Judge, on the ground that being Fed
eral officers, and charged with the execution of a
Federal writ they had 4 right to overcome, by any
necessary violence, all attempts made under the
BabAN@eo VI a SNaNc "a ~ 80 NASAA ~ NV
prisoners even for inquiry into the legality of
The custody in which tluse prisoners Were held.
This principle cannot be sound. 1t subverts
! efiectua!ly the sovereignty Of the State. 1t as
serts tic right ofaay District Judge oil the United
States to arrest tho execution OF State process,
and 10 nuilily the functions of State courts and
juTies whenever IN his opinion L person charged
with crime under State authority, has acted in
the N tier forming the basis OF the charge, in
pursuance Of any federal law or warrant. No
get Of Congress, i'll my judgment s~aactions this
principle. Such an act, indeed, would be clear
iy unconstitutional, because in plain violation
Of the express provision which requires thar
The trial Of all crimes shall be by Jury.
1t Is deeply to be regretted that collisions OF
this kind should oecur. The authorities of Ohio
have never failed in due considerations for the
constitutional rights OF Federal Court, nor will
they thus fail. But they cannot admit, without
d.suoaor,t that State process is entitled to less
respect than Federal, NOR can they ever cOncede
to Federal writs or Federal officials a Difference
which IS not conceded to those OF the Stale.
The true couse is one Of mutual respect and
mutual difference. Whenever in any inquiry
upon habeas corpus, by any Court, State Or Fed
erul, it Lsay be ascertained that the applicant for
the writis detained under valid process in pur-
suance of a constitutional law he should be re-
manded at once 70. the custody from which he
may have been taken, for trial in due course.
No investigation should take place into the guilt
or innocence Of the party charged, or, what's
substantially the seine thing whether the facts
were justified by the authority under which the
applicant was acting at the time. Inquiries of
this character are for juries upon a regular trial
and in open court; not for u judge at chambers.