Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1859-06-08
From the State Journal.
THE HABEASC0RPUSC CASE.
Decision Of the Majority OF the Court.
Dissenting Opinions of Judge BrinkerhoG
and Sutlilf.

Dissenting Opinions of Judge Brinkerhof
and Sutlif.
The decision of the Supreme Court,
in the application for discharge oi
Bushnell and Langsion, convicted of q
violation of the Fugitive Slave Act, a
the recent term of the United States Dis
tric, Court for the Northern District ot
Ohio, was announced yesterday after.
noon, all the judges being present. The
decision of a majority of the Court, mama.
ly, Chief Justice Swan, and JUICES Scot
aud Peck, was against the prayer of the
rela,ors. Judges Brinkerhoif and Suiliil
diss@nied from the ma ority of the Court
Whatever may be the conflicting pop
ular opinions upon the decision rendered
by majority of The Court, the people oi
Ohio will doubtless regard il as lhe de
liberate Judgment Of the highest tribunal
Of the State, and viii respect it accord
ingly.
We give below synopsis of Judge
Swans opinion. We had hoped to have
given the opinion entire in this issue Of
orr paper. but it *as retained b, Judge
Swan for revision. The synopsis, how.
ever, presents the main points:
JUDGE SWANS OPINION.
Judges Swan, Scott and Peek held
|. That the provisions Of Art 4 Sec.
2 Of the Constitution If the United States:
No person held to service or labor in
one Slate under the laws thereof, escap-
ing iuto anoihrr, shall, in consequence
cf any other regulation therein, be dis
charged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of The
auy 10 whom such service or labor
may be dJc," guarantees to the owner Of
an escaped slave the right of reclama-
ton.
II. That citizen, who knowingly
and intentionally iuierferes with, for the
purpose of rescue OF rescLes from the
owner an escaped slaved, is guilty of d
violation Of the Constitution of The United
Safes, whe ther the acts Of 1893 and
1880, commonly called the fugitive slave
laws. are unconstitutional or not.
Ill. That the question in this case,
is not whether The fugitive act of 1853 is
unconsIiiG;iora in respect 10 the appoint
ment and. powers Of commissioners, the
allowance Of writ Of babeas corpus, the
mode Of reclamation, &C., but whe b, r
Congress has any power TO pass any law
~haiever, however just aud proper, in i's
provisions, for the reclamation Of slaves,
or to protect the owner of an escaped
slave from interference, when daily as
seriing his cen. tiiu.ioaal rights of recla.
nation.
lV. That Congress. from the earliest
period of the government. has, by legis-
laiive penalties, vindicated the consliin-
iional right of the owner Of slave, against
unlawftil interference.
V. That such legislation was adopted
in 1893 by the second Congress elecled
under The Constitution, composed of
many cf The members of the Convention
who framed the Constitution, has, from
that day 10 ibis, been in active operation,
and has been scquiesed in by all depart
menis of The government, national and
Stale; and the legislative power OF Cen
gress on this subjec, has been recognized
by the General Assembly of the Safe Of
Ohio in their statues; by the Supreme
Court of the United States, and by the
Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, New
York, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois,
California, by the Supreme Court of Ohio
on the circuit, ami, indeed. by the Su-
preme Cours of every Stale in the
Union where the question has been made,
and has never b=en denied by the Su-
pTeme Court of any Slate-the Courts
of Wisconsin, notwithstanding the pop
ular impression, not forming an excep-
lion.
vi. The right 10 rescue escaped
slaves from their owners being denied 10
all citizens of the United States by the
Constitution; Congress having prohibited
it and enforced The prohibition by penal
ties; the Supreme Court of the United
States and Courts of the free States hav-
ing recognized and acquiesed in such
legislative prohibition and punishment. if
the question is not thus put beyond Ike
reach ef the private personal views of
judges, and if they possess judicial dis
cretion or power to overrule on the au-
thoIity of their individual opinions this
current of decisions and this
of tie States f the Umi. a
aud charge the settled Interpretation of
Ihe Constitution OF the United States:
then there is no limit, and no restr. int
upon judges making at any time, and
under any circumstances, their own indi-
vidual opinions, the arbitrary interpreters
Of the Constitution.
VII. Whatever difference of opinion
may now exist in the public mind, as to
10 The power of Congress to punish res
cuers as provided in the acts of 1893 and
1850, no such vital blow is given either
10 constitutional rights or State sovereign
" by Congress thus enacting a law 10
punish violation of the Constitution Of
he United States as TO demand of this
Court the organization of resistance. If,
after mer taan sixty years ofacquiesence
BY all departments of the nalional and
Stale governments, in the power of Con-
yress, to provide for the punishment of
,escuers of escaped slaves, that power is
o be disregardedand all laws which may
be passed by Congress on This subject
rom henceforih are TO be presisienily
'esisted and nullifed, The work of revolu-
ion should no: bebegun by The conser
vaors If The publiOesce.
Judge Scott orally assented 10 the
oregoiug. as embodying his views, es-
,ecially 10 its conclusions; although he
minated that he would, in a written