The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1858-01-21

masses OF the people, by such provisions as will
insure to labor just compensation in actual
value. This cannot be effected whilethe laborer
is paid in paper, subject to continual fuctus-
ton, and exposed to all the hazards of fnau-
cial disorder.
Whatever can be consttutioDaliy effected by
State legislation, towards the exclusion of the
smaller denominations Of notes for circulation,
and the substitution of coin in their place,
should be earnestly attempted. The quantity
OF com III the country is now so great and so
steadily increasing, that no injury and almost
no inconvenience could arise to any interest,
from Judicious legislation for this object On
the contrary, it seems to nee certain that the
increased circulation of coin which will thus be
secured cannot fail to result in moot substan-
tlal Dement'S to all interests, by additional secu-
rifles against tiuctustion and revulsiOn. These
dement's seem to me so obvious, that l should
nope Tor the assent of the banks themselves to
the legislation necessary to secure them.
The existence of the decision already refer
red to; the uncertainty Of obtaining the assent
OF the banks to the necessary legislation; the
tact that we are surrounded by States whose
banks issue such notes and the practical diff
hculty of excluding the notes of these banks
from circulation In Ohio-created the appre-
hension L have heretofore expressed, that COM
paratlvely little can be accomplished in the
direction OF the proposed reform by State egis-
lation. These apprehensions yet remain. The
effectual remedy is with the Federal Govern
ment. Looking at the manifest intent of the
constitution to protect the people from the
evils OF a paper currency, az well as to the spe-
cihc powers granted TO Congress, cannot doubt
the power OF the National Legislature to pro-
hioit the circulation as money of any substi-
tutes for coir. Nor can doubt that the exer-
hv
OF notes of the smaller denominations under
twenty dollars, would be wise and salutary.
The denial OF this power virtually submits the
regulation OF commerce in its most important
fundamentally to the variable and conflicting
policies of thirty-one States, and defeats one of
the main purposes of the Constitution.
Entertaining these views, have observed
with regret the recent declarations of the Chief
Magistrate of the United States, that the Fed.
erai Government cannot do much to provide
against the recurrence Of existing evils" and
that we must mainly rely on the patriotism
and wisdom of the States for their prevention
ana redress" Such declarations especially
when accompanied with recommendation of
the issue by the Genera! Government of a large
addition to the mass of paper currency. in the
form OF Treasury notes, are calculated to frus.
trate the hopes of reform which might be oth-
erwlse reasonably entertained. While do not
doubt that the General Assembly will do what
ever may be within its constitutional power
towards the object proposed, / respectfully
submit that its whole duty will not be performed
until this mater be commended to our Sena.
tors and Representatives in Congress by appro-
pirate resolutions.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STATE SOW
EREIGNTY.
There are some aspects of the relations of
Ohio with the Federal Governments, to which
feel myself constrained to invite your atten.
ton.
In my last communication to the General
Assembly, stated some reasons Tor believing
that there is o large sum due 70 the State from
the United States under the compact relat;ng
to the proceeds of public lands disposed of
within our limits. recommend the abortion
OF resolutions, instructing 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 recon.
mended to Congress the enactment of bank.
rupt law, applicable only to banks aud railroad
companies. Such a law would draw within
Federal jurisdiction and disposition interests of
vast extent, and intimately connected With the
concerns OF nearly all our citizens. 1t is indis
pensable to the sovereignty CT the State, that
she retain the control OF these corporations in
her own Legislature and her own courts. Ii
the General Assembly concurs with me in this
OPINION, trust its sentiments will be made
known IN some appropriate mode.
A disposition las been manifested. within !
the last few years, by some Of the officials of
the Federal Government, exercising their fanc- /
tions within the limits OF Ohio, TO disregard the
authority and to encroach upon the rights Of !
the State, to an extent and III a manner which !
demands your notice.
In February, 1856, several colored persons
were seized In Hamilton county as fugitive !
slaves. One OF these persons, Margaret Garner
IN the frenzy OF the moment, impelled, as it
seems, by the dread of seeing her children
dragged, with heraef, back to slavery, attempted
to Stay them on the spot, and actually succeeded
IN killing one. For this act, she aud her CON-
panlons 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 pro-
cess OF State court, for the highest crime |
known to our code, o wri. Of ha6eas corpus was |
issued by Judge of the District Court of the |!
United States, requiring their production be- |
tore him. The writ was obeyed by the Sheriff, /,
and, contrary to all expectation, ard in disre- |
gard, as must think, of principle a1d authority, |
the prisoners were taken from his custody BY !
order of the Judge, and, without allowing any |
opportunity for the interpositicn OF the State |
authorizes, delivered over to the Marshal of the |
United States, by whom they were immediately !
transported beyond our limits The alleged
ground fer this action and order was, that the
indicted parties had been seizsd as fugitive
slaves, upon Federal Commissioner warrant,
before the indictment and arrest, AID that the
right to their custody, thus acquired was supe.
rior to that Of the Sheriff, under the process Of
the State. This doctrine must necessarily give
practical IMMUNITY to murder, whenever the
murderer may be seized by a Federal official
as fugitive from service before arrest 70. TIE
crime under State authority. Imputing no
wrong intention to the j udge, am constrained !
to add that his proceeding seems to me an
abuse, rather than an exercise, Of judicial
power.
similar case occurred more recently in the
county of Champaign. Several deputies Of the
Federal Marshal, having arrested certain citi-
zens OF this State, fer some alleged ofe1ce
against the Fugitive Slave Act, O writ of habeds
corpus was issued by the Probate Judge CT TIE
county, requiring the arrested parties 10 he
brought before him, for inquiry into the grounds
of detention. The Sheriff of Clark county.
while attempting to execute this writ, was as
'aulted by these petty officials, and seriously
while his deputy was fred upon,
though happily without effect. A warrant was
issued by Justice Of the Peace, for the sppre-
tension of the perpetrators Of theee offences.
This warrant was duly executed, and the p,is.
oners committed to Jail, under the custody Of
the Sheriff of Clark county. A writ of ha6eds
corpus was then issued by the same District
J Judge who had interposed In the case of Mar
yaret Garner, requiring the Sheriff of Clark