Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1859-06-10
THE OBERLIN FUGITIVE SLAVE
CASE


victcd in the Federal District Court on a
charge of rescuing slave. a majority of
the Court (three judges agreed in this opin-
ion. while two judges dissonted. This de-
cision unquestionably disappoints the wishes
Of vast majority Of the Republicans Of the
country, and we think it as much disappoints
the expectations of the slavocracy. Below
we give a full statement of the leading opin-
ions of the judges and we will only add
our own opinion, (which will be taken with
the understanding that toe do not belong to
the legal profession, that, aside from the
question of the constitutionality of the fugitive
slave law, but by reason solely Of the defect
in the indictment, in that it was not averred
that the alleged slave was bound to service
under the laws of Kentucky. the minority
Of the Court was in the right, and the pris-
oners ought TO have been discharged. The
provision of the Constitution in respect to
fugitivcs from service is a simple restriction
upon all State authorities. with this single con-
dition it must be shown that the "service
is due. If service in this case was due by
the laws Of Kentucky, The State of Ohio had
not the right, by its Courts or otherwise, to
refuse to deliver up the man to any person
lawfully claiming him but, if this fact was
not shown, nor even averred as it seems,
then there was no claim for the negro, and
no restriction upon Ohio, and Langston and
Bushnell we're guilty of no crime The nc
gro. in that case, was held without authority
and due process of law; Langston and Bush
nell were wrongiully convicted by the Dis
trct Federal Court and the proper remedy
was discharge by habeas corpus by the State
Court The privilege of haLe1s corpus is
older than the Federal Constitution, and
guaranteed to the people Of every State. 1t
is the privilege of the People emphatically,
and before the adoption of the Federal Con-
stitution it was to be had only through the
State Courts The Federal Constitution in
no respect limits this privilege in the States,
save, as specially stated, in case of invasion or
rebellion. With this exception, there has
been no surrender Of the power of the State
Courts, and. therefore. whenever, in any State,
any man is unlawfully restrained of his liber-
ty by any power Federal or otherwise, we
believe the State Courts have the right to set
him free and that it is their duty to do so
1t will be observed that the majority of
the Judges would have concurred in opinion
with the minority were the question new
one, but yielded their own Judgment to the
authority of presidents, the chief being that
of the Federal Supreme Court. This was a
yielding of their own consciences as men
a yielding Of what they believed right to
what they believed wrong; and it was also a
spirit of submission to Federal judicial usur-
patton by no means creditable to the State
Court. Better stick to the right and let other
folks commit the wrong. Still the majority
were Republicans so they decided against
- both their judicial and political Jennings
! This sacrifice of political opinions is certainly
in strong contrast with the political decision.
of the Supreme Court at Washington anC
# the political decision of both Judge and Jury
in the Federal District Court Of Ohio in these
very cases of Langston and Bushpell. Tie
l. Republicans of Ohio will now address them
C selves to the work of correcting its Suprem,
Court. Indeed, already Judge Swan, whc
delivered the decision in this case for ma
ority Of the Court, has been refused a re
nomination by the Republican State Conyen
ton.
n DECISION OF THE OHIO SUPREME COURT.
From the Columbus State journal, May 81
B The decision of the Supreme Court, in thu
application for a discharge of Bushnell an,
Langston, convicted of a violation of tn,
y Fugitive Slave act. at the recent term of tn,
e United States District Court for the Northern
- District Of Ohio, was announced yosterda,
is afternoon, all the Judges being present Tn,
q decision of a majority of the Court-namely
!, Chief Justice Swan. and Judges Scott ant
- Peck-was against the prayer of the REALTORS
:" Judges Brinkerhof and SutiG dissente,
from the majority Of the Court.
Whatever may be the conflicting popula
opinions upon the decision rendered by a ma
l. jority of the Court, the people of Ohio will
T. doubtless regard it as the deliberate iudgmen
n, of the highest tribunal of the State, and will
respect it accordingly.
We give below synopsis of Judge Swan
opinion We had hoped to give the opinio
entire in this issue of our paper, but it wa
iy retained by Judge Swan for revision. Tn
e, synopsis, however, presents the main points
L. JUDGE SWANS OPINION.
Judges Swan, Scott and Peck held:
|, That the provisions of art. 4, section .
of the Constitution of the United States
IT -" No person held to service or labor in on
to " State, under the laws thereof, escaping int
d " another, shall, in consequence of any la,
g " or regulation therein, be discharged fror
" such service or labor but shall be delvore
~ Sup on claim of the party to whom sue
" service or labor may be due" guarantees t
the owner of an escaped slave the right c
It. reclamation.
II. That a citizen who knowingly and in
he tentionally interferes with, for the purpose q
mt rescue, or rescues from the owners an oscar
ne ed slave, is guilty of violation Of the Con
S, sttuton of the United States, whether tn
I'd acts of 1898 and 1850, commonly called tn
'h Fugitive Slave laws, are unconstitutional G
not.
s. III. That the question in this case is nc
IN whether the Fugitive Slave act Of 1850
n unconstitutional in respect to the appointmer