Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-07-23

assertion, In the official correspondence which
we published last week in order to have the record
correctly kept, Jennings & Co., 10 a letter address
sed to the U. S. District Attorney, explicitly state
shat the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain Coun-
ty is willing to enter a nolle, proUided that a nolle
be also entered in the case of the Rescuers, Does
that Look like the U. S. government applying for a
compromise In a letter of Jennings d Cos
counsel also addressed to the u. 5. District Attor-
ney they say, we have agreed with the State Off
GERS, that in consideration of the dismissal OF the
suit against our clients, to ask you to enter a nolle
in the case of Plumb, Peck and others. Does that
look like the U. s. government applying for a
compromise ? Then we next have the declaration
of Messrs. Stanton and Carter, that neither Bel
den, nor any other officer of the U. S. Government
"had any agency whatever, either directly or IN
directly, 10 originating or rerfectiug the settlement
agreed upon between Messrs. Jennings and others.
and the Attorneys engaged in the prosecutions OF
the indictments in Lorain County against them.
Whatever responsibility is attached to the agree
ment or settlement belongs to Messrs. Jennings,
& Co., ami to us as the friends aud Attorneys of
the parties and TO none others" The Leader will
find some of the people less credulous than it an
ticipates, if it expects its unsupported declaration
v OuthObBu oNSh Stii ~ no tN uOS'O'
In the arrangement which was made, one or
two points seem to have been almost entirely over
looked. One is, that the right Of the legal owner
Of the boy John, to civil remedies has not been
compromised-he yet retains the right TO sue for
damages, and we should not wonder if the exult-
ant shouts of victory from the friends of the Res
cuers, would prompt him to show that they are
not yet beyond the grasp of the Fugitive Slave
Law. ...
The other point is this the entering of q nolle
is neither an acquittal nor a final settlement it is
simply q discharge for the time being. Judge
Bowler in his Law Dictionary says" The effect of
. noue prosequi when obtained, is to put the de-
PENDANT without day, but it does not operate as an
acquittal for he may be afterwards re- indicted"
This being the case, both KidGappers and Rescu-
ers are at any time liable to re-arrest and trial
but this liability would operate more unfavorably
in the case of the Rescuers, than in that of the
Kentucky portion of the Kidnappers, for the lat
ter would be hard to catch again, and according to
Mrs. Glass receipt FOR dressing fish, ''you must
first catch your fish,"
In regard to the writ of IIabeas Corpus the
Leader says:
1.-THE difference between a Federal and State
writ OF Habeas Corpus is very great. The State
is the general guardian of the liberties of its in
habitants. Its Judges are bound to inquire into
all kinds Of IMPROVEMENTS and decide their le-
gality. Their jurisdiction is general, and no one
can decline to obey. But with Federal Courts it is
very different. They havejurisdiction only where
O prisoner is confined on federal process, or for
obeying federal law. Unless IL appears that the
prisoner is thus confined, q Federal Judge has no
jurisdiction whaterer, and no right 10 issue The
prit." e.
We here experience again the same difficulty
in ~crediting the assertion Of the Leader, as we had
upon another point-a lack of testimony to sus-
tain it, while having abundant evidence to dis.
prove it. The fact that Judge Mclean issued a
writ of habeas corpus in the case of Jennings
q Co., weighs something against the Leaders as
%sertion. The fact that offenders against State law
have repeatedly been brought before U. S, Judges
on such writs, weighs something against the
Leaders assertion. The fact that State courts
have acknowledged the right of U. S. Judges to
issue such writ, weighs something against the
Leaders assertion. If the editor had even so much
as a solitary case by which, to sustain his theory,
it is q pity he did not give it. lie probably felt
that it would operate well in the Lorain case, and
did not stop to ask whether the general adoption
of such a theory would be in accordance with the
principles of Justice, and in harmony with the
spirit of our free institutions.
Let US test its operation in the South. The
laws of some of the Southern States imprison all
oolored seamen who may visit their ports and it
is q fair presumption that the State Courts regard
such laws as Constitutional. A colo-ed citizen of
Ohio goes to South Carolina, and is arrested. His
friends apply to a U. S. Judge for a writ of habeas
corpus. ''Hold T. says the Leader, ''your Honor
has no right to issue it. The offence is against
State laws, therefore let the applicant go to a State
judge. II have no hope" replies the man, sin
a State Court. But if l can get my case before a
United States Judge, l trust he will pronounce the
law unconstitutional and liberate me-. "He has
no right to issue the writ" reafhrms the Leader.
Take another case. The laws Of Virginia forbid
the circulation Of the Leader there, or any other
paper Of anti-slavery tendency. The editor hap
pens to be passing through the Old Dominion, and
hands a copy of his paper to a friend. lie is ar-
rested, and held for trial. What can he do to EFF
feet his release? There is no use in taking out a
writ of habeas corpus before q State Judge,
for every State officer holds the law to be constitu-
tional. His only hope-poor though it be-is the
examination of his case by a United States Judge /;
but if the Leaders, theory be correct, that Judge
has no authority to open HE prison doors by such
q writ.
We incline to the belief that the United States
Courts have, as they certainly ought, as good a
right to protect United States citizens against the
illegal oppression of State officials by a writ of ha-
beas corpus, as have State Courts to protect State
citizens in a like manner against the illegal oppres-
sion of United States officials and we are sorry
the Leader don't agree with us. In its anxiety to
stand perfectly straight upon the question of State
Sovereignty, it seems to US to overdo the matter
by leaning considerably backwards.
CIRCULAR.