Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1858-01-14

custody upon a writ regularly issued from
the Court of Common Pleas.
While thus imprisoned under the legal
process of State Cour, for the highest
crime known 10 our code, writ of habeas
corpus was issued by the Judge of the Dis
trict Cont Of the United States, requiring
their production before him. The writ was
obeyed by the Sheriff, and, contrary to all
expectations, and in disregard, as must
think of principle and authority, the prison.
ers were taken from his custody by order
of the Judge, and, without allowing any
opportunity for the iuterposition of the
State authorities, delivered over to the
Marshal of the United States, by whom
they were Immediately transported beyond
our limits. The alleged ground for this
action and order was that the indicted par
ties had been seized as fugitive slaves upon
Federal Commissioners warrant, before
the indictment and arrest, and that the
right to their custody, thus acquired. was
superior to that of the Sheriff, under the
process of tie State. This doctrine must
necessarily give practicalimpunity to muir
der whenever the murderer may be seized
by Federal official as fugitive rom ser
vice before arrest for the crime under State
authority. Imputing no wrong intention
to the Judge, am constrained to add that
his proceeding seems to me an abuse, rath-
er 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 citizens of this State for
some alleged offense against the Fugitive
Slave act, writ of Habeas corpus was is
sued by the Probate Judge of that county,
requiring the arrested parties to be brought
before him for inquiry into the grounds of
detention. The Sheriff of Clark county,
while attempting to execute this writ, was
assaulted by these petty officials and seri-
ously injured, while his deputy was fired
upon, though happily without effect. A
warrant was issued by Justice of the
Peace for the apprehension of the perpe-
traitors of these offenses. This warrant
was duly executed and the prisoners COM
mitted to Jail under the custody of the
Sheriff of Clark county. A writ of habeas
corpus was then issued 10y the same Dis
trict Judge who had interposed in the case
of Margaret Garner, requiring the Sheriff
of Clark couty to produce his prisoners be-
fore him at the city of Cincinnati. This
writ was also obeyed, and the prisoners
were discharged from custody by the order
of the Judge, on the ground that being
Federal officers, and charged with the exc.
cution of a Federal writ, they had right
to overcome, by any necessary violence, all
attempts made under the process of a State
court, to detain them or their prisoners,
even for inquiry into the legality of the
custody in which those prisoners were held.
This principle cannot be sound. Itsub-
verts effectualIy the sovereignty of the
State. 1t asserts the right of any District
Judge of the United States to arrest the
execution of State process, and to nuilify
the functions of State courts and juries,
whenever in his opinion person charged
with crime under State authority, has act
ed in the matter forming the basis of the
charge, in pursuance of any federal law or
warrant. No act of Congress, in my judg-
ment, sanctions this principle. Such an
act, indeed, would be clearly unconstitu-
tional, because in plain violation of the ex-
press provision which requires that the
trial of all crimes shall be BY Jury.
1t is deeply to be regretted that collis-
ions of this kind should occur. The au-
thorities of Ohio have ne yer failed in due
considerations for the constitutional rights
of Federal Court, nor will they thus fail
But they cannot admit, without dishonor,
that State process is entitled to less respect
than Federal, nor can they ever concede to
Federal writs of Federal officials differ
ence which is not conceded to those of the
State.
The true course is one of mutual respect
and mutual difference. Whenever, in any
inquiry upon habeas corpus, by any Court,
State or Federal, it may he ascertained
that the applicant for the writ is detained
under valid process in pursuance of con-
stitutional law, he should be remanded at
once to 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 is substantially the same thing,
whether the facts were justified by the au-
thority under which the applicant was act
ing at the time. Inquiries of this charac-
ter are for juries upon regular trial and
in open court; not for judge at cham
bers. If made upon one side upon habeas
corpus, they must also be made upon the
other. If Federal courts are to protect
Federal officials from prosecution by State
courts for alleged violation of State law,
State courts in their turn, must protect
State officers from prosecution in Federal
courts under similar circumstances. Hence
dangerous conflicts must arise, and immi-
nent peril both to liberty and union.
In such conflicts must come, to the ex-
tent Of the power vested in me, I shall
the honor of the State and sup
port the authority of her courts. I prefer
to hope that they may be averted by the
abandonment, on the part of the Federal
on the indefensiblc positions
which they assured.
The same disposition to extend the range
'f Federal power in disparagement of State
sovereignty and popular rights, has been
,onspicupusly manifest in the action of the
Federal government in regard to the Terri
,ory of Kansas. From the day when that
erritory was deprived of the safeguard of
he Missouri prohibition by the passage of |