Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-05-27
MORNING LEADER.

Court Room yesterday 10 inquire into the le.
gaity of the imprisonment Of Bushnell and
Langston, who were found guilty in the U. s.
District Court for the Northern District Of Ohio,
for being complicated IN the rescue of the ne
gro John az Wellington
The sheriff of Cuyahoga county appeared in
court with the prisoners, and made a formal
return to the writ that he held them in pursu-
ance Of final judgment Of the U. s. District
Cuut. A. G.. Riddle Of Cleveland opened the
case for the prisoners with q clear and iorcible
argument, of which we can give but a brief
abstract.
He argued that the law under which the
proceedings were taken was no law, and that
the acts charged in the indictment constituted
no crime under the law. IL was no law lst,
because Congress had no constitutional power
to legislste for the rendition of fugitive slaves
2d, it had no power TO pass such a law as the
fugivo slave law, 80, under that law the re
cord charges no crime 4th, the act is in con-
tradiction to the ordinance of 1857
He mgued with much force that il was be- !
yond the power of the Supreme Court Of the |
United States, by any number Of Judicial de. |
cisions, to give constitutonaity to an act that |
is in itself uneonstitutionalge He then referred |
TO some Of the cases which had been cited, to |
show that the fugitive law had been judieially |
held unconstitutional
In the Prigg case the Supreme Court deci
ded only upon the consdtutionality of law Of
Pennsylvania, against kidnapping, and they
decided this law unconstitutional, because a
slave owner had the right to seize his slave
wherever he may be found, without lepsl pro.
cess. It is not known that they agreed upon
any other propositions besides, the Court held
in that case that no uniform rule of construc-
ton could be followed under all circumstances,
but must be governed by the exigencies of the
Casa principle totally subversve of all legal
principles and restrictions. BY a single de.
cision of this kind, we are not to be finally
bound. It only furnishes a rule until revised
The Supreme Court cannot make its adjudica-
tons the law of the land The Supreme Court
of this State, representing sovereignty, cannot
be estopped from the exercise of its sovereign
rights by its adjudications.
The most sacred right and duty of sovereign
| ty is the protection of its citizens. The right
of every citizen to demand the protection and
the right and duty of the Court to grant it is
Imperative. In regard to the rights Of citizens
of this State, this is the tribunal of last resort
States, like persons, have certain inalienable
rights These rights have never been granted
away Ohio was Just as much party in the
formation Of the constitution as if she had been
present through her delegates. Has Ohio ever
conferred upon the federal government the
right OF supreme legislation! The learned
Counsel examined fully the compromises OF the
Constitution, and showed that among them
could not be found the right to legislate for the
recapture of fugitives; he argued that there
was no connection between the compacts on
one side aud the compromises on the other
The compromises confer no further power on
Congress to legslate. With the compacts are
prohibitions and guarantees; power not speci6-
cally granted by the constitution are expressly
reserved TO the sovereign States; all these are
compacts. distinct from compromises, and in
the face of these no court can, by any number
of adiudioations confer power to legislate
which is not granted.
The law providing for the re capture of fugi.
tives is law establishing slavery in the free
States There is nothingin the nature of slave.
ry that gives it claim to national legislation
Slavery has no existence in the constitution;
local affair "ft'GSi t cannot dCia&ten it is purely
law; slavery cannot be implied; all the imPff
catonS are against slavery and in favor of free
dom.
With these principles fixed in our minds, that
slavery is a local, and not national institution
and that all natural implications are against it
, we should approach the investigation of thu
constitution. The object of the trainers of tn,
q constitution, which they declared in the pream
: ble TO be ITO establish justice aud secure tn,
blessings of liberty" precudes the idea tina
any power can be implied from it TO legisate Il
secure slavery an express grant must be show
in the constitution in order to convey this pow
u er The Counsel reviewed those parts of tn
: constitution from which, IL has been held, thi
d power was implied, showed that in all case
a where the power in Congress TO legislate wa
e necessary to carry out the purposes Of the con
; stltution, it was expressly granted, while powc
> to egislate for the rendition Of fugLives wa
= withheld.
4 As to the fugitive act of 1898 having show
&c the intent of the trainers Of the cons tuition b
n cotemporaneous construction, he showed tina
[. the preponderance of cOtemp0raneOus cOnstrut
a ton was against the power Of Congress to leg
- late Oh this subject, No power is found in III
constitution for Congress to legisate on th
subject; that is sufficient for this Court.
none is expressed, none can be implied
!, Congress had no power TO enact the iugitiN
~ slave law because it violated the rights of pc
p sonal liberty by authorizing any one to seize /
r force an alleged fugitive
d. If the constitution mentions slaves at ALL
Ir confounds them with persons. If the constit
of ton does not distinguish between persons al
no slaves, then legislation cannot This law pr
yides that slaves may be seized by any clair
~ ant The legal presumption is that every pc
nc son is free The law pfesumes that every pc
on son is slave A fugitive escaping TO fr
1r State, is a free man soon as he crosses Il
ed border He may be restoredi but until so
all turned the status Of freedom attaches TO hi
nd completely. The constitution declares that
- person shall be deprived Of liberty without d
s0 process Of law. The fugitive cannot be dep
we'd of his liberty without such process iC
chile seizure by the owner is not process
law. .l
o- The record of this case does not show that
crime has been committed under the iugti
On slave Law. II is not shown that the alleg
- slave John was held TO service in Kentucky U
'be der the laws thereof The allegation OF the
led dctment does not show that he was lega
re- held under the fugitive slave law, and thereit
nd it was not a crime under the fugitive slave I
on TO rescue him. The law also conflicts with
lhe ordinance Of 1887, which is the supreme law
a. the northwest territory, The parties TO IL
VA ordinance had an unquestioned right TO ma
rn- IT, 1t has never been repealed or modified
The ordinance was Incorporated in the conf
5Iv tuition Of Ohio That slavery cannot exist
IA the State OF Ohio is settled by aJjudicatlC
- If any power can be found for Congress TO /
lon islate for the rendition Of fugitive slaves, q
70 ordinance estops 1t in the North west terrific
an and restricts Il TO the original States.
of Our imperfect sketch does no justice TO
hat convincing argument Of the learned counsel.
was made from notes taken under the disadv
an, tage of an unfayorable position for hearing,
',o without any opportunity 70 submit to the 90
'go' sells revision.
the District Attorney Belden, who was assis
Ito by N, II, bwayne, Esq, waived alSumeDt
the part of the Sheriff; submitting the quest
the on bfiefs Of their Arguments on the same ~
,sn ton in the previous hearing. Attorney G
~ eral WOlcott, who said that he appeared IA