M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1859-08-04
Judge Ranney VS.. tile Fugitive
Slave Law.

The only thing Opposition editors have
undertaken to use to the disadvantage Of
Judge Ranney, is the statement that he in
1850 was violently opposed to the Fugitive
slave Law. Personally we know this 10 be
untrue. As co-edilor Of the Trumbull Dem
ocrat, we advocated the maintenance of that
law, AMI that advocacy was appreciated by
Judge Ranney The Republican Sentinel,
published at Canfield the place where it is
said Judge Rdnney delivered himself Of his
indignation. .Ogains; the law, in its issue Of
the 2lsI inst %, thus dispcsIs Of the calumny:
-ChH. Advertiser.
The report circulating through the Repub-
lican press that Judge Ranney participated in
an antisavery meeting at Garfield, in 1850,
denounced the fugitve.sluve law, aud adyO-
Gated certain SCI of resolutions adopted on
that occasion, is simply an untruth. The
meeting referred to in which Judge Ranney
took hItle more than a spectators part, was
not regarded at the time, as, nor called under
the head OF anti-slavey. The meeting was
gotten up as peoples meeting" and Judge
Ranney. as was the case with many, who
were present, happened there only BY acci
dent He was not there as a speaker to par
tcipate in the business of he meeting and
give tone and character to the proceedings,
but as spectator merely; and 1t was only
after those who were known as friendly to
the "people's" call had spoken, and the com
mittee appointed TO draft set of resolutions,
had retired that Judge Ranney was called for
He had listened 10 the vehement declama-
tions of others, and in response TO his own
name, addressed the meeting in very few
words, and not to the import, Bs stated By re-.
publican papers. The full substance Of
Judge Ranney's remarks, as can be testified
to by those who were present, was, that he
had not seen a copy Of the law, and was ig-
norant as to its provisions, consequently he
was not prepared to EXPIRE SIS his views fully
in regard to it, but that he did not believe the
law to be as bad as represented, and fit was
we had proper constitutional remedy, and
so long as this right existed, the full power
TO correct evils oil this kind rested with the
people, and he would counsel no other meas.
ure. Now, how far will the facts bear them
out in asserting that he endorsed the resolu.
tons. The committee were absent but
NElI ellolb NllllCy ulil NHllob lulillSY
was yet speaking, when that gentleman iln-
medidteIy gave way, and l.ftthe Courthouse;
nor did he return that evening to endorse them
nor has he at any subsequent time. As evil
dence of their little knowledge Of what they
write, or their disregard for truth one OF these
republican papers asserts that Mr.. Gibson,
our representative in the Legislature last win.
ter, was an active participant in this meet
ing, and assisted in drafting, as we / as in re-
porting these resolutions, which the enemy
seem 10 think are freghted with so much
harm to the democratic party. Nov it is
fact as well known that this is false, as it is
that Ranney nude an anti-slavery speech -
1t is true that MIR. Gilsoh was called upon to
act with the committee in preparing resolu-
tions, but it is also true that Mr. Gibson liter
ly refused to have anything to do with the
meeting, and 50 stated publlcly;yet his name
was reported, and published contrary to his
knolOa desire. Again, in this same meeting
Gi,son was asked TO take part as speaker
which he refused 10 do. remurking, he would
not Join in a mixed convention.