Western Reserve chronicle. [volume] (Warren, Ohio) 1855-1921, 1859-05-04
WARREN, WEDNESDAY. MAY 4.
The Rescue Case.

Nee& P~kSsaWditiuS tue hctiOA u fiC Gu
prene Court of Ohio. on the application
for q writ of kabeas corpas. That action
has come in the form of a refusal on the
part Of the Supreme Court to allow the
writ. upon the ground that the action oil
the U. S. District Court is not as yet
final, and the State Court will therefore
decline acting, I'LL the sentence on the
defendant is actually pronounced.
There is q general disposition to re
gard this as sn evasion Of responsibility
on The part OF the Suprt me Court. A
bold meeting of the question would have
been more TO the taste of the people,
for honest men generally prefer a flat
decision against them, TO any shufhing
by which the matter msy be kept in
suspense.
The Supreme Court says it will not
presume that the U. S. District Court
will not decide properly on the question
Of The constitulionality of the fugitive
act Till it has formally passed upon that
question ; when informed, however, that
that question was especially met and
decided in Bushnell's case, upon the mo-
lion to quash the indictment, the Court
sill replies that a motion TO quash is not
a very formal thing, but if Judge WEI
son holds the same upon a motion in
arrest of judgement, we shall see
what we shall see.
We say frankly We don't like this in
direction. The question of the COAST
tutionaliiy of the Fugitive Law was ar
gued ON both sides before the Court Of
Columbus, and both sides seemed 10
take it for granted that that question
was to be met, when 10! our Supreme
Courf, has so nice a sense of courtesy to
the u. S. District Court, that it will not
assume that the question which Judge
Wilson decided explicitly on a motion
to.quasb the indictment. will be decided
10 the same manner upon a motion in
arrest Of judgment. The Supreme Court
will wait and see.
The U. s. Courts have never been
troubled by any such squeamish cour-
tesy. In Febuary1e56, when Margaret
Garner, who killed her child rather
than have it sent back to Slavery, was
in custody of the State officers under a
writ from the Common Pleas Of Hamil-
County. a writ of ko6sas corpus issued
from the U. S. District Court in Cincin
matt, and she was taken from the Custo-
.dy Of the State officers and hurried back
.in,o Slavery. without stopping to say
.'.by your leave 10 the Court of Com
non Pleas under whose writ she was
.htll.
Later still. when the deputy U. S
Marshal, in Champaign County fred up
on and injured the sheriff of Clark
County. who was a.tmping TO serve a
s ate witt upon them, the Marshars
depu.ies we've arrested for The assault
by authority of the State Courts, and
the u. S. District Court again stepped
in and by a writ of Aa6sas corpus took
the Marshals, and released them, and we
heard aothing of judicial courtesy OF
waiting for the final action Of the State
Courts.
The execution of the Fugitive Slave
Law is a ,yranical oppression of the PEG
pie of the Northen States, and is regard
ed by a large majority of them as ille-
gal and unconstitutional as it is immoral
and wicked. We believe that all the
Judges of the Supreme Court Of the
State have recorded their opinion TO the
same eff ct. We know most of them
have. and the position of all o fthem with
reference to a political question OF this
Kind, was supposed by the people TO be
more doubtful han the position Of
the Revolutionary Judges in regard to
ihs Starp Act. Had there been any
question as to their position they could
not have been elected to the places they
hold.
Under these circumstances II would
have done no harm 10 reflect that a So
ps,fne regard for judicialcourtesy, ought
not to be found on one side only, and
that a modest yielding on the part of the
State Count Is, to the Federal Judiciary.
may look like a timid servility, when
that Federal judiciary is so prompt 10
interpose with its abole power. to favor
Slave propagandism. without any regard
wh,trver to the writs Of the State Courts.
The question with the people is wheIh
er the laws. and the Courts of Ohio. are
Sui i cient TO project the personal liberty
of her citizens, against the tyrannicai
agsressions of the Slave power, which
controls the Federal government, or
whether as one of The U. S. Attorneys
cooiIy told the Court at Columbus. they
m lst right themselves by forcible and
revolutionary action. Whilst the peo-
heart Is no, with this aebste, We
question whether it will be re
by them as a merit in the Judges
Of The Supreme Court. that by an adroit
use Of technicaii;ies, and an overstrained
courtesy for the Z S. Court, they avoid
ed the decision Of the issue. which more
Than all others Elects the liberties Of the
ci'iz ms Of OEio. |,
We hold it true that the moment one
Of our people is arrested upon q charge I
Of violating tie Infamous Fugitive Law.