Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1859-06-08
From the St. Louis Republican.
The + tive Slave Law.

Very few readers of the Newspapers have
failed to notice the trial of a series of re-
markable cases at Oberlin, Ohio, in which the
question of the ability of the authorities of
that State to execute the Fugitive Slave
Law. was put to severe test and the law
was, the country will be glad to know. vindi-
Gated. A set of fanatical scoundrels under
took to deride and defy the law, and in so
doing, in process of time, a grand jary was
folHd with sufficient regard for the Con-
stitutOn and the law, to present indictments
against them. The court, too, by which these
indictments were tried, had independence
enough to see that the law should be fairly
executed; and the result was that some fifteen
or twenty persons were either found guilty
by the verdict of jury, or acknowledge ''the
corn" by cOnfessing thae they had been en-
gagged in violating the law by aiding runa-
way negroes to eacape from their masters,
and even rescuing them from the custody of
United States officers Those who plead
guilty were subjected to a nominal punish
ment; but others, who stood out against the
law. were sent to Jail for sixty days. and
fined and mulcted in the costs. They did go
TO Jail. The Black Republicans supposed
they had made a great case for popular
clamor. They got up mass meetings, sent off
for all the big guns-CHAsE. GIDDINGs, WADE.
and all the other defenders of the policy of
negro stealing from people of other States
who supposed that they had nothing to do but
TO make speeches against the Fugitive Slave
Law, and it would be disregarded by their
Stale Courts. Meanwhile, the cOnvicts in
jail, not liking their martyrolOgy. made APP
plicatiOn to the Supreme Court for habeas
corpus, to bring them before that body, and.
being a writ of right, it was granted.
The clamOr of the Black Republicans at
Cleveland, it was supposed, would do the
business for the Supreme Judges. and compel
them to a d. cision which would bring the au-
thOrities of the State and OF the United States
in direct collision. This was the design. If
fOrcible resistance had been drcreed by the
Supreme Court of Ohio, as would have been
the effect of decision to release the convicts,
then civil war would have commenced. and
the question would have been there and else
where whether the authorities of the United
States or of the State should be sustained.
But the knaves who plotted to bring about
this state of things were disappointed. The
Supreme Court OF Ohio is composed of better
material than they dreamed of, and after full
argument decided that it was their duty to
sustain the constitutiOnality of the Fugitive
Slave Law. a majority Of the Court gave
this decision, and thus the underpinning has
been knocked from under the political gam
blers in the Free States, who bave been eve
rywhere preaching this doctrine. This is not
a decision made in Slave State. nor decis-
ion in United States Court, but it is the de-
cisOn of the Supreme Court of Ohio-a State
in which, of late years, nothing has been so
marked as II total disregard and notification
of this law
The Cincinnati Times, OF Tuesday evening,
says of this decision:
Chief Justice Swan delivered. in writing
very learned opinion. in which he maintained
the constitutionality of the Fugitive Slave
I Id, p,.al- oil in tuTiti ut SaJ
the same opinions held by the Chief Justice.
Judge Scott orally Endorsed the opinions of
Judges Swan and Peck with an understanding
that he would afterwards embody his views
in written document.
The majority of the Court held:
l. That the provisions of Art. w, Sec. 2,
of the Constitution of the United States: No
ters0n held to service or labor in one State
under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
hall, in consequence OF any law or regulation
herein. Ne discharged from such service or
abor; but shall be delivered up on claim of
be party TO whom such service or labor may
ne due guarantee to the owner of an escaped
lave the right OF reclamation.
III. That citizen who, knowingly and in
entionaliy interieres with, for the purpose Of
.escae or rescues from the owner an escaped
lave, fs guilty of ayiolation of the C0nsti-
uiion of the United States, whether the acts OF
1898 and 1850. commonly called the fugitive
lave laws. ar, unconstitutional or not.
ILL., That the question in this case is not
whether the fugitive act Of 1850 is unconsti-
sutional in respect To the appointment aud
powers of commissioners, the allowance OF a
writ Of habya as corpus, the mode Ot reclama-
ton, etc, bat whether Congress has any
power TO pass any law whatever, however
ust aud proper in its provisions. Tor the re-
siamation Of slaves, or to protect the owner
oil an escaped slave from interference, when
daly asserting his constitutional rights Of re-
clamatlou.
~. That Congress, from the earliest period
Of the gayernIa nl, has, by Legislative penal
ties, yindicaged the constitutional right Of
the owner Of slaves against unlawful inter
ference.
V. That saoh legislation was adopted In
1898 hy the Second Congress elected under
the Constitution, composed OF maay Of tue
Inembrrs OF the Convention who framrd the
Constitution, has, from that day TO fills, been
In aciive operation, aud has been aeqaiesced
In by all departments Of the Government, na-
sienal and state; and the legislative power
Of Congress has been recognised by the Gene
mi Assembly Of the State II Ohio In their
statutes. by the Supreme Court Of the ual-
ted states, aud b. ths Saprenle Courts 81