Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-06-01
MORNING ]I.EADER.
From the Sta journal.
From the sta journal
The Habeas Corpus Case.
Decision Of the Majority Of the Court.
Dissenting Opinions Of Judges Brinkerhon
and sutli0.

States District Court for the Northern District
Of Ohio, was announced yesterday afternoon,
all the Judges being present. The decision of
a majority Of the Court, namely, Chief Justice
Swan, and Judges Scott and Peck, was against
the prayer Of the relators, Judges Brnkerhoil
and Sutlilf dissented from the majority of the
Court
Whatever may bo the conflicting popular
opinions upon the decision rendered by a ma.
jOnty Of the Court, the people of Ohio will
doubtless regard it as the deliberate judgment
OF the highest tribunal Of the State, and will
respect It accordingly.
We give below synopsis Of Judge Swans
opinion. We had hoped to have given the opin.
ion entire in this issue Of our paper, but it was
retained by Judge Swan for revision The syn
opsis, however, presents the main points
JUDGE SWANS OPINION.
Judges Swan, Scott and Peck held --
l. That the provisions OF Art. 4 Sec. of the
Constitution of the United States mo person
held to service or labor in one State under the
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in
consequence Of any law or regulation therein
be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on llim Of the party to
whom such service OF labor may be due" guar
ties to the owner OF am escaped slave the right
of reclamation
ii. That citizen, who. knowingly and in
tentionally interferes with, for the purpose of
rescue or rescues from the owner an escaped
slave, is guilty of violation of the Constitution
ofthe United States, whether the acts Of 1898
and 1850, commonly called the fugitive slave
laws, arc unconstitutional or not.
III. That the question in this case, is not
whether the fugitive act of 1850 is unconstitu.
tiOnal 10 respect to the appointment and powers
of commissioners, the allowance of writ of
| habeas corpus, the mode of reclamation dc :,
but whether Congress has any power to pass
any law whatever, however Just and proper, in
its provisions for the reclamation of slaves or to
protect the owner of an escaped slave from in.
reference, when duly asserting his conslitu-
tional rights of reclamation.
". That Congress, from the earliest period
of the government has, by legislative penalties,
vindicated the constitutional right of the owner
Of slaves against unlawful interference.
V. That such legislation was adopted in
1893 by the second Congress elected under the
Constitution, composed Of many Of the mem
bers of the Convention who framed the Con
stitution, has, from that day to this, been in ac-
tive operation, and has been acQuiesed in by all
departments of the government national and
State; and the Legislative power of Congress
on this subject has been recognised by the Gen
eral Assembly Of the State of Ohio in their
statutes; by the Supreme Court of the United
States and by the Supreme Courts of Massa.
chusetts, New York, Pennsylvania. Indie"a,
Illinois, Cali!eERso o8 tAdesa a 2G1 sr ] GUo 81
Courts of every State in the Union whele the
question has been made, and has never been
denied by the Supreme Court OF any State
tho Courts of Wisconsin, notwithstanding
the popular impression, not forming An exccp.
tion.
VI. The right TO rescue escaped slaves from
their owners being denied to all citizens of the
United States by the Constitution; Oongreff
having prohibited it and enforced the prohibi
tion by penalties; the Supreme Court of the
United States and Courts of the free States
having recognized and acquiesed in such egs
lative prohibition and punishment, if the ques
ton is not thus put beyond the reach OF the
private personal views of judges, and if they
possess judicial discretion or power TO overrulC
} on the authority of their indivipual opinion,
3 this uubroker current of decisions and this ac
quiescncc of the States of the Union, and change
the settled Interpretation Of the Constitution o
the United States; then there is no limit, ant
no restraint upon judges making at any time
and under any circumstances, their own indi
vduaI opinions, the arbitrary interpreters o
n the Constitution.
y VII. Whatever difference of opinion ma,
a now exist in the public mind as to the powe
= Of Congress to punish resouers as provided i
:, the acts of 1893 aud 1850, no such vital blov
7" Is given either TO constitutional rights or Stat
? sovereignty by Congress thus enactng law h
70 punish a violation of tue Constitution of III
}. United States as to demand of this Court th
o organization of resistance. IT, after more tina
A sixty years Of acqulesence by all department
: Of the national aud State governments, in tb
: power of Congress to provide for the punish
'S ment of rescuers of escaped slaves, that powt
g. is to be disregarded and all laws which may i
r passed by Congress on this ubect from hence
it forth are TO be persistently resisted and MULTI
cd, the work of revolution should not be begu
"a by the conseryators Of the public peace.
- Judge Scott orally assented to the foregoing
=, as embodying his views, especially in its COZ
~ illusions although he intimOted that he woul
"a in written opinion, modify some OF tho d
TO tails.
el Judge Peck delivered an elaborate write
to opinion, coinciding with Judges Swan al
M Scott, comprising review Of the decisions
M the Courts, and particularly of the State Court
oc upon the questions involved ia the case, al
nv treating the whole matter as a res GdjHdicata.
ee Judge SUtlif also read a dissenting opinio
W taking the ground that according 10 the e
OF tablished rules Of construction, no authori
se for Congress to pass the Fugitive Act could
~ found in the Constitution The entire doc
nd ment, together with the opinion of Judge Swa
n will be given in our next.
an Judge BriDkerhoG also disssnted from d
ng majority Of the Court, in forcble opinio
Die which We give below.
a JUDGE BRINKERHOFF'S OPINION.
EN- Brinkerhof, j., said
to Since the close of the argument Of the
en eases-Sunday and visit 10 my family int
led yening-l have not had time 10 do more tn
d, hastily to sketch brief outline of my opini'
ol on the questions they present This | CIV
''p y, and may and may not, as leisure or inc IN
,cr ton may prompt, commit them TO paper, WI
,en the reasons on which they rest more fully Al
re- in detail hereafter
m l. Under the advice Of the District Ate
All ney Of the United States, the indictments u
'nt der which the relators were convicted, are a
~ pended to, and form part Of the return
ve these wrts. The question whether they char
ae. a crime or not, is therefore before us, 80
fee indictments are fatally defective, in this, to "
to that neither Of them aver that John was held
od service or labor 10 the State Of Kentucky "a
m der hs Ialbs thereof" I'd section, 4th artic
noi Constitution United States.
M /. This defect is not a mere error or ireg
,an arity. fit were, so far as this point Is ct
I'M oerned We should be obliged 10 remand
ne prisoners; for the writ Of Habeas Corpus ct
ave not be made 10 perform the functions Of "
er. Of error. But %. This defect 10 an Illegal
bis The averment omitted Is Of the essence Of
Z, OF crime; without the fact omitted be ayern
NV NV there is no cnme for IL is no crime 10 reese
I IN from custody person held 10 service or lal
inc 10 another State 0heTtDise than "undeT the Ia