The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1858-01-14

While thus mprisone / under the legal process
ofa State Court for tr highest crime known TO
| our code, a writ Of q heas corpus was issued
by the Judge of Oh is,rict Court of the United
States, requiring T. production before him.
The writ was obeyed b., the Sheriff, aud contrary
! TO all expectations, and In disregard, as ! must
! think Of principle and authority, the prisoners
we're taken from his custody by order of the
| Judge, and, without allowing any opportunity for
/ the interpositon OF the State authorities, deit
| cred over to the Marshal Of the U g., by wholh
they we're Immediately transported beyond our
limits.
The alleged ground for this action and order
was that the indicted parties had been seized as
| fugitive slaves upon Federal Commissioners
wavemt 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 the State This doctrine must neces-
| sarily give practical impunity to murder whenev
er the murderer may by seized by Federal
official a. n fugitive from service before ARREST
for the crime under State authority. lmpnting
no wrong intention TO the Judge, am constrain
ed to add that his proceeding seems to me 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 citizens
of the State for some alleged offence against the
Fugitive Slave Act writ of IIabeas Corpus was
issued by the Probate Judge Of that county re-
auiring 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 aud seriously injured, while his depu-
ty was fred upon, happily without effect. A war
rant was issued by Justice of the Peace for the
apprehension of the perpetrators OF these ohen-
ces. The warrant was duly executed and the
prisoners committed to Jail under the custody of
the Sheriff of Clark county. writ of Habeas
Corpus was then issued by the same District Judge
who had interposed in the case of Margaret Gar
ner, recurring the Sheriff of Clark County to pro-
duce his prisoners before him at the city of Gin
cinnati This writ was also obeyed, and the pris
ners were discharged from custody by the order
of the Judge on the ground that being Federal
officers, and chargce with the execution OF Fed
eral writ, they had right to overcome, by any
necessary violence all attempts made under
the process of State Court to detan them or
their prisoners even for inquiry into the legality
of the custody in which these prisoners were
held
This principle cannot be sound. 1t subverts
effectually the sovereignty of the State 1t as
serts the right of any District Judge of the Uni
ed States to arrest the execution of State process,
and to nullify the functions of State courts and
jnries, whenever in his opinion person charged
with crime under State authority, has acted in
the matter forming the basis of the charge, in
pursuance ofany federal law or warrant. No act
of Congress, in my Judgment, sanctions this
principle. Such act, indeed, would be clear
ly unconstitutional, because, in plain violation
Of the express provision which requires that the
trial of all crimes shall be by Jury.
1t is deeply to be regretted that collisions Of
this kind should occur. The authorities of Ohio
have never failed in due consideration for the
constitutional rights of Federal Courts, nor will
they thus fail. But they cannot admit, without
dshonor, that State process is entitled to less
pect than Federal nor can they ever concede to
Federal wrts or Federal officials a Difference
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 be ascertained that the applicant for the writ
is detained under valid process in pursuance of a
constitutional law, he should be remanded at once
to the custody from which he may have been ta-
ken, 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 authority under which the applicant was act
ing at the time. Inquiries of this character are
for juries upon regular trial and in open court
not for judge at Chambers. If made upon one
side upon habeas corpus, they must also be made
upon the other. If Federal courts are to protect
fcucral OllclalS from prosecution Dy State courts
for alleged violation of State law, State courts in
their turn must protect State officers from prose
cution in FedsyNl courts under similar circumstan-
ces. Hence dangerous conflicts must arise, and
imminent peril both to liberty and union.
If such conflicts must come, to the extent OF
the power vested in me, shall maintain the hon.
or of the State and support the authority of her
courts. Iprefer to hope that they may be avert
ed by the abandonment on the part of the Fed
al onthA Ac thn snAa s;hI ftnn
which they have assumed.
The same disposition to extend the range OF
Federal power in disparagement of State sover-
eighty and popular rights has been conspicuously
manifest in the action Of the Federal Government
in regard to the Territory of Kansas. From the
day when that Territory was deprived Of the
safeguard the Missouri prohibition by the Kan
sas-Nebrasks act, the whole action Of the Feder-
al government seems to have been directed to the
establishment of slavery within its limits. In
stead Of committing, in good faith, to the people
OF the Territory, the formation and regulation OF
their own institutions, all the influence of the ma
tional administration has been exerted for the
subjugation of the people to the will of the prop
agandists of slavery. The whole practical effect
of the Kansas Nebraska act has been the subsi
tuition of Presidential intervention for Slavery,
instead of Congressional Intervention against
slavery.
3 Without resistance or febuke from the Nation.
al Administration, the actual residents of Kansas
were driven from the polls at the first territorial
election, and pretended Legislature was imposed
on an unwilling people by the fraud and force OF
invaders from an adjoining State. The people
harrassed and outraged beyond endurance by the
tyranny of the usurping legislature and its nstru
ments, who were countenanced and aided by Fed
eral Office holders, sought relief in State orga
ization, Through Convention assembled at To
pcka they framed State constitution, and af.
ter its ratification by the popular vote sought
admission under it into the Union. Their prayer
for such admission, though granted by the House
of Representatives rejecting the will of the peo
pie, was denied by jhe Senate, rejecting in this
the viii of the Slave interest.
Every federal officer in the territory who man
Tested any sympathy with the people, was from
) time to time, removed, and bodies of troops were
sent to compel submission to usurping power.