The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1859-08-10
Judge Ranney VS.. the Fugitive
Slave Law.


The only thing Opposition editors have
undertaken to use to the disadvantage oi
Judge Ranney, is the statement that he in
1850 was violently opposed to the Fugitive
Slave Law. Personally, we know this to be
untrue. The Republican Sentinel, publish
ed at Garfield, the place where it is said
Judge Ranney delivered himself Of his indig.
nation against the law, in it's issue Of the
2lsl ult., thus disposes Of the calumny.:
The report circulating through the repub.
lican press that Judge Ranney participated
in an snti.slavery meeting in Garfield, in
1850, denounced the fugitive slave law, and
advocated certain set Of resolutions adopt.
ed on that occasion, is simply an untruth.-
The meeting referred to in which Judge Ran.
ney took little more than spectators part,
was not regarded at the time, as, nor called
under the head of, anti-slavery. The meet.
ing was gotten up as a "people's meeting"
and Judge Ranney, az was the case with
many who were present, happened there only
by accident. He was not there as a speak.
er to participate in the business Of the meet
ing and give tone and character to the pro.
ceedings, but as a spectator merely and il
was only after those who were known as
friendly to the "people's" call had spoken,
and the committee appointed to draft set OF
resolutions, had retired, that Judge Ranney
was called for. He had listened to the We.
hement declarations OF others, and in re.
spoDse to his own name, addressed the meet
ing in very few words, and not to the i'm
port, as stated by republican papers. The
full substance OF Judge Ranney's remarks, as
can be testified to by those who were pres.
ent, was, that he had not seen a copy of the
law, and was ignorant as to its provisions,
consequently he was not prepared to express
his views fully in regard to it, but that he did
not believe the law to be as bad as repre-
sented, and il it was, we had proper con.
stitutional remedy, and SO long as this right
existed, the full power to correct evils of this
kind rested with the people, and he would
no other measure. Now, how far
will the facts bear them out in asserting that
he endorsed the resolutions. The commit
lee were absent but very short time, and
returned whilst Ranney was yet speaking,
when that gentleman Immediately gave way,
and left the Court house ; nor did he return
that evening to endorse them, nor has he at
my subsequent time. As evidence of their
little knowledge OF what they write, or their
disregard for truth,- one of these republican
papers assert that Mr.. ellison, our represent
ative in the Legislature last winter, was an
lctive participant in this meeting, and assist
ID in drafting, as we'll as in reporting these
esolutions. which the enemy seem to think
ire freiohted with so much harm to the dem.
'cratic party. Now it is a fact as we'll
Inown that this is false,as it is that Ranney
made an anti slavery speech. 1t is true that
1r. ellison was called upon 10 act with the
committee in preparing resolutions, but it is
lso true that Mr.. ellison utterly refused TO
ave enylhing to do with the meeting, and
o stated publicly ;yet his name was report.
d and published contrary to his hnorn de.
ire. Again, in this sume meeting, ellison
vas osked to take part as speaker, which he
efused to do, remurking, he would not join
n a mixed convention.