The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1859-10-05
zCADlZ OHIO, WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1859
Judge Ranney and the Fugitive
Slave Law in 1S5O-.--AnOtheI
EalsehoOd Nailed

Judge Ranney and the Fugitive
Falseh0Od Nailed
The Leader Of Saturday publishes from th'
Mahonins Register an article on the subject o
Judge Ranuey's attendance at q meeting il
Mahoning county, in 1885, where the Fugitive
Slave Law was denounced, and, and to suppor
the position that the Judge took part in thu
meeting, and in company with Judge Birchard
denounced the law IN bitter and unmeasureC
terms. In support the truth Of its assertion
the Leader and the Mahoning Register draw up
on paper, proiessedly Democratic, pri nted il
the same town, and published at the time, which
speaks of Judge Ranney and Judge Orchards
speeches as exceedingly abusive of the Fugitive
Slave Law-denouncing it in whole and in par
as unconstitutional, and as miscreants all whe
aided in its passage. This whole matter sp-
pears PLAUSIBLE upon its face, for the main part
oft purports to come from q Democratic paper,
published at the time, and Democratic papers,
at all times and on all occasions, are to be be.
lieved. The Mahoning Luder, the paper allud-
cd to, was not Democratic at that time. II
was established as a Democratic sheet, but il
turned Abolition, just as Lucifer, once an angel
Of darkness. Its Editor was then, and his word
after betraying the Democracy, is not to be tax.
en- as truth, without good evidence to corrobo.
rate it.
at the time the Mahoning meeting to de-
nounce the Fugitive Slave Law took place
Judge Ranney was attending Court in that
county. On the evening in question he had
just made the closing speech in case where
he was an Attorney, and the jury, between
seven and eight O'Clock, had just gone out
While arranging his papers to leave, the meet
ing was organized, and Judge Wade commenc-
speaking. Judge Ranney remained to listen.
There were several Democrats present, who
called on Judge Ranney to speak. He respond
ed and spoke some five minutes, apologizing
for doing so in a meeting to the proceedings Of
which he was opposed. He counselled the peo-
pie to wait until they could see the law they
NShOuiiSOus ~ 40 obbISut ~ toOh away bHO AISut
of habeas corpus, in his opinion it was unconsti-
tutional so far as that section was concerned,
and the proper authority, which was the Unit
ed States Courts, would so decide it. But to
denouneea law and to counsel resistance to it
was wrong, The proper remedy was repeal
if unconstitutional the remedy was in the
Courts. He had not seen the law---his only
knowledge Of it was from infammatory arti~
cles denouncing it. Thus in brief was the sub
stance Of the remarks OF Judge Ranney--such
the position he then took upon this subject
The Courts have since decided that the writ of
habeas corpus is allowed by the law, and hence,
in the opinion then given by Judge Ranney, the
law is constitutional. ...
Judge Birchard also spoke, and of his speech
the L,der, as quoted by the Register and Leader,
says:
"Hon. Matthew Birchard, one OF our ex. Chief
Judges, next spoke against this communicating
bill, and the way he delineated and exposed the
iniamy Of this ungodly law, in his cool, sedate
and sarcastic manner, is not in the power ofour
pen to decide but it was made to tell upon the
hearts, the sympathies, and the judgments Of
this people; and like an old Jefferson Democrat
he denounced all who had any hand or took
any part in this bill OF villainy-this bond Of
blood and DEATH"
The beauty of this extract can be seen when
we state the tact that this Mahoning meeting
was one ola series that had been held by wade,
SutlifF and other Abolitionists. At the one held
in Warren, Judge Birchard happened to be
present, and Was called on by the Democrats,
and was loudly Kissed by the free speech Abo-
litionists because (tel it not in Gath, he sus-
tanned the law! Happening to see the account
in the Lnden where he was represented as op-
posing the law, Judge Birchard wrote COM
vember 18th, 1850, contradicting the change,
and showing that, instead of opposing the law,
he sustained it, and in doing this, he showed
that the main features of the law in principle
and in detail, had been declared Const tuition
oil by every Court of competent jurisdiction in
the Union since 1888, and if unwise in any re
spect, an appeal to the ballot box was the on
" one Democrat would ever make for redress,
and that, in resisting notification on the one
hand, and unjust and lawless interference with
the reserved rights Of the States on the other,
Democrats acted consistently with their duty
and the principles Of the Fathers Of the Repub-
lie, and were neither slavery propagandists or
Abolitionists. ..- .sa.a .s
These facts at once give the lie direct to the
extracts given in the Leader and the Register.
The Inder the paper they were saiG to be ta-
ken from, as we before intimated, was then an
Abolition sheet its Editor having become a
convert to Nggerism, his paper changed with
him. After this overt act, his paper went down
Democrats having withdrawn their support
from it. FNl
To prevent the Democracy from being car.
ried off in the wild goose chase against this law
Ito prevent honest men from beind led blind
fold into notification, Judge Ranney that same
fall took the stump, and in speeches in Trum-
bull, Mahoning and other counties, sustained
the law as one demanded by the compromises
Of the Constitution, and its stringent provisions
rendered necessary by the acts Of men who, to
gain their own private ends, would raise the
whirlwind of destruction that they might di-
rect the storm. He spoke Of the dangerous
scenes through which the nation had just pass
ed, when such men as Clay, Webster and 9th
ors on the one hand, and Cass. Bright, Douglas
and others, life long political enemies. had struck
hands and joined in owe common effort to save
tho Union in the enactment Of the series ol