Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-08-06
Tbe Anti 9laperp Blele.
From tho Washington Republic.
WHAT is THE DIFFERENCE

There are some men in the Republican ranks
who hold that it is the right and duty of the State
courts to interpose and prevent the execution of
the fugitive slave act, by the courts Of the United
States. Our readers are aware that the refusal of
the Supeme Court of Ohio, in a recent application
for that purpose, to set at liberty certain prison
ers who we're undergoing the sentence of the Unit
ed States District Court, conviction for forci-
bly, resisting the execution of that act, has been
violently assailed by certain politicians of that
State, some of whom 60 so far as to declare that
hey do not recognise as Republicans" men who
will sustain that decision.
1t would seem that these men are determined to
make direct issue with their brethren this
point. WE'LL il it is an issue that must be met. 1t
behooves us to look as both sides of it, 1t be-
hooves even those who think that fugitive slave
never ought to be delivered up, under any circum-
stances nor by any process, to look as both sides
of the iesue and see what there is in this new
doctrine TO commend it to their favor. % Hs
In the opinions of the judges, in the Ohio hadeas
c6ypus case, we have the two conflicting doctrines
cleArly laid down. The court consisted of five
iudaSs, all Republicans. Three of the five held
that they had no right to interpose and arrest the
execution of the sentence of the Federal court, on
the ground that the act under which the prisoners
were convicted was unconstitutional especially af-
ter it had been decided to be constitutional by the
Supreme Court of the United Statos-whatever
their private opinions on that subject might be.
The other two judges held not only that the fu-
pitive act of 1850 is unconstitutional, but that
Congress has no constitutional power to pass any
set whatever for the surrender of fugitive slaves.
They held, alec. that the State courts have right
to interpose and prevent the execution OF any act
of Congress which they may deem unconstitutlon-
al and that it was their duty to interpose and pre-
vent the execution of the act under oonsidera-
tion. .. r....... ...
Those who would read out of the Republican
party all who sustain the decision of the majority
of the court, accept the dissenting opinion of the
minority, as laying down the orthodox Republ-
can doctrine This doctrine will be found very
clearly stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge
Brnkerhoff, which we printed in our paper on the
9th of June.
Now, does Judge Brnkerhoff assert that fugi-
tive slaves ought not to be surrendered, on claim,
to their owners? By no means. lie aeknowl-
edges the constitutional right of the owner to re-
capture his fugitive slave, and the constitutional
obligation and duty to deliver him up, on claim,
quite as distinctly the majority of the Judges
do. But he thinks the States are bound to pass
laws to carry into effect that provision Of the Con-
stituton which declares that "fugitives from ser
vice or labor shall be delivered up claim of the
party to whom such service or labor shall be due"
and that Congress has no right to legisate on the
subject. The following is the concluding para
graph Of bis opinion on this point: -'
II conclude, therefore. that theStates are bound,
in fulflment of their plghted faith, and through
the medium of their laws, legislation and func-
tionares to deliver up the fugitive from service or
labor. on claim of the party to whom such ser
vice or labor may be due under the laws of anoth-
or State from which the fugitive has fed. But
sthe Federal Government has nothing to do with
tire subject and its interference is sheer usurpa-
'tiop of a power not granted, but reserved" g
e Now we respectfully ask those who are consoi.
'entiously opposed to the surrender of fugitive
slave under any circumstances, what they expect
TO gain by adopting this doctrine ?Ths fugitive is
to be surrendered, at all events. Congress says,
and the Supreme Court of the United States says,
he must be delivered up in accordance with law
of the United States to be enforced in the Federal
courts, and executed by Federal officers. But
Judge Brinkerhoff says, he must be delivered up
in pursuance of laws which 'he states are bound
in Jalflmeat Of their plighted Jaih.' ITO pass for
that purpose. Where is the difference, so far as
the interests of the fugitive are concerned? or
course, those who hold. with Judge Brinkerhof,
that the States bound by their plghted faith to
pass laws providing for the delivering up of fugi-
tive slaves, would have those laws erscuted when
passed. :--tL j