Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1858-01-19


In my last communication to the General
Assembly, stated some reasons FOR be-
lieving that n large sum Is due to the State
from the United States, under the com
pact relating to the proceeds of public
lands disposed OF within our limits. re-
commend the adoption of resolutions, in
|structiug our Senators and requesting our
Representatives in Congress to urge the
payment Of this claim.
The President of the United States and
the Secretary of the Federal Treasury have
recommended TO Congress the enactment
of Bankrupt Law, applicable only to
Banks and Railroad Companies. Such a
law would draw within Federal jurisdic-
ton and disposition, interests of vast ex-
tent, and intimately connected with the
concerns of nearly all our citizens. It is
indispensable to the sovereignty Of the
State that she retain the control Of these
corporations in her own Legislature and
her own Courts. IF the General Assem-
bly, concurs with me in this opinion. 1 trust
its sentiments will be made known in some
appropriate mode.
A disposition has been manifested,
within the last few years. by some of the
officials of the Federal Government, exer-
cising their functions within the limits of
Ohio, to disregard the authority. and to
encroach upon the rights of the State, to
an extent and in manner which demands
your notice.
In February, 1856, several colored per-
sons were seized in Hamilton County as
| fugitive slaves. One of these persons,
Margaret Garner, in the frenzy of the mo-
ment, impelled, as it seems, by the dread
of seeing her children dragged, with her
self, back to slavery, attempted to slay
them on the spot, and actually succeeded
| in killing one For this act, she and her
companions were indicted by the Grand
Jury for the crime Of murder, and were
taken into custody upon writ regularly
issued from the Court of Common Pleas.
| While thus imprisoned under the legal
process of a State Court, for the highest
crime known TO our code, writ of habcas
corpus was issued by the Judge of the
District Court Of the United States, re-
quiring their production before him. The
writ was obeyed by the Sheriff, and con-
trary to all expectations, and in disregard,
as l must think. of principle and authority,
the prisoners were taken from his custody
by order Of the Judge, and without allow
ing any opportunity for the interposition 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 parties had
been seized as fugitive slaves upon a
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 the State. This doctrine must
necessarily give practical impunity to
murder whenever the murderer may be
seized by Federal official as fugitive
from service before arrest tor the crime
under State authority. Imputing no
wrong intention to the Judge, I am con-
strained 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 this State for
some alleged offense against the Fugitive
Slave Act, writ of habeas corpus was
| iSSuou ny tno TOuate JuuGe Vi LIat
county, requiring the arrested parties to
be brought before him for inquiry into
the grounds of detention. The Sheriff oi
Clarke County, while attempting to exc
cute this writ, was assaulted by these petty
officials and seriously injured, while his
deputy was fired upon, though happily
without effect. A warrant was iss ued by
a Justice of the Peace for the apprehen-
sion Of the perpetrators of these otfenses.
This warrant was duly executed, and the
prisoners committed to Jail under the Gus
tody Of the Sheriff of Clark County.
A writ of habeas corpus was then issued
by the same District Judge who had in
terposed IN the case of Margaret Garner,
requiring the Sheriff of Clark County to
produce his prisoners before 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 execution of Fed
eral writ, they bad right to overcome,
by any necessary violence, all attempts
made under the process of 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. 1t
subverts effectually 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 nullify
the functions of State Courts and Juries,
whenever in his opinion person charged
with crime under State authority, has acted
in the matter forming the basis of the
charge, in pursuance of any Federal law
or warrant. No act of Congress, in my
Judgment, sanctions this principle, Such
an act. indeed, would be clearly Nncon-
stitutional, 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 COLI