Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-04-30
From the state journal.
The Rescue Characterization Of the ohio
supreme COurt.


others, the Wellington rescuers against the u
s Marshal and the Sheriff of Cuyahoga county
As before stated, the case was ably argued by
Judge Spalding for the relators, Attorney Cen
eral WocOt also appearing at the request of
the Governor, on behalf Of the State, although
not participating in the argument, owing TO his
recent domestic affiiction The IT, s. District
Attorney Judge Belden, assisted by Noah H.
Swayne, Esq, of this CITY, appeared on behalf
of the United States The argument, on both
sides, was elaborate and exhausted the reason
ings and authorities applicable TO the case; and
the Court, after mature consideration, unani-
mously came to the conclusion embodied in the
written opinion prepared by Judge Peck to
which we refer our readers.
The Court, by its decision simply declines TO
interfere with the cases now pending in the
United States District Court until the latter
Court has taken final action thereon The legal
questions involved in these cases, and especial
y the main question, the constitutionalIty of
the fugitive slave law, is not reached by the
Court. We doubt not that when the occasion
arrives for decision upon the merits Of the i'm
portant questions involved in these casof, they
will be met by the Court with that vgor, una.
nimity and frmncss which the dignity, honor
andindependent authority Oft the State demands
Meanwhile the prisoners in Cuyahoga county
will have the consolation of knowing that the
sympathies Of every true friend Of freedom in
Ohio are warmly with them and for them, and
that the right will in the end be sure to triumph.
1t is, perhaps well that our highest State tri.
bunal should again set an example of modera-
tion and iorbearance to the Federal Court, which
the latter has heretofore pcrssteutly djsrcgard-
ed; aud it is probable that public opinion will
sanction the postponement of decision by the
State Court of the important constitutional
/ Lam 1pyrnl,yoI Ia,
the final adjudication of the United States Court
is determined and made known. In this post.
ponement, as in the Wisconsin case the State
as far as may be in its power, avoids occasion
for conflict of jurisdiction, and throws the re
! sponsiblity Of such collision, should il come,
| upon the general government. IL would have
been better for all parties if the latter had been
equally concliatory aud forbearing in its Judi
cial intercourse with the State In striking con
| trast with the conservative decision of the Ohio
| Supreme Court, i'm the Wellington rescue cases,
was the conduct of the u. s District Court of
Southern Ohio in the case of Margaret Garner,
in 1856, and in the Clark county rescue cases
in 1857. BY way of pointing this contrast, and
refreshing the memories of our readers, in re.
gard TO important transactions which are too apt
to be forgotten OF overlooked, we quote the his
tory of the cases referred to, which is succinctly
stated in the message Of Governor Chase, 1858
That message says:
| A disposition has been manifested, within the
last few years, by some of the officials Of the
! Federal Government exercising their functions
withinthe limits of Ohio, TO disregard the au-
thority, and to encroach upon the rights of the
state, to an extent and in "a manner which de-
mands your notice
In February, 1856, ecveral coored persons
were seized in Hamilton county as fugitive
slaves. One of these persons, Margaret Gar
ner, in the frenzy OF the moment, impellcd as
| it seems, by the dread of seeing her children
| dragged, with herself, back to slavery, attempt.
ed to slay them on the spot, and actually sue
ceeded in killing one For this act she and
her companions were indicted by the grand
jury for the crime of murder, and were taken
into custody upon writ regularly issued from
the Court of Common Pleas.
While thus imprisoned under the legal pro-
cess Of State Court, for the highest cnme
known to our code, a writ ofhabcas corpus was
issued by Judge of the District Court of the
United States, requiring their production before
him. The writ was obeyed by the shnrif, aud
contrary TO all expectations, and in disregard.
az ! must think, of principle and authority, the
| prisoners were taken from his custody by order
| the Judge, and, without allowing any Oppor-
tunity for the interpositon Of the State author
tiles, delivered over to the Marshal of the Unit.
ed States, by whom they were Immediately
transported beyond our limits. The alleged
ground for this action and order was that the
indicted parties had been seized "a fugitive
slaves upon Federal Commissioners warrant,
before the indictment and arrest, and that the
right to their custody, thus acquired, was supe
rior to that OF the Sheriff, under the process OF
the State. This doctrine must necessarily give
practical impuuity to murder, whenever the
murderer may be seized by Federal official as
fugitive from service before arrest for the criml
under State authority. Imputing no wrong in
tention TO the Judge, ] am constrained TO ado
that his proceeding seems to me an abuse, rathc
thal an exercise, of Judicial power
similar case occurred more recently in the
county of Champaign. Several deputies OF The
Federal Marshal having arrested certain citi
zens Of this State for some alleged olIens,
against the Fugitive Slave act, a writ e habrar
corpus was issued by the Probate Judge OF that
county requiring the arrested parties TO be
brought before him for inquiry into the ground,
of detention. The Sheriff OF Clark county
while attempting TO execute this writ was as
sauted by these petty officials aud seriously in
iured, while his deputy was fired upon, thougl
haply without effect. A warrant was issuet
by Justice Of the Peace for the apprehension
of the perpetrators of these oilenses. Ihi,
warrant was duly executed and the prisoners
committed to jail under the custody of tn,
Sheriff of Clark county A writ of habca,
corpus was then issued by the same Dslric
Judge who had interposed in the case of Mar
garet Garner requiring the Sheriff of Clarl
county TO produce his prisoners before him a
the City Of Cincinnati, This writ was alsC
obeyed, and the prisoners were discharged from
custody by tho order Of the Judge, on tn,
ground that being Federal officers, aud charged
with the execution of Federal writ, they had
n right TO overcome by any necessary violence,
all attempts made under the process of State
court to detaln them or their prisoners, oven fol
inquiry into the legality Of the custody in whicl
those prisoners were held.
This principle cannot be sound 1t subvert,
cfIcctually the sovereignty Of tho State It. as
serts the right Of any District Judge OF the Uni
ted State to arrest tho execution of State pro
cess, aud TO nulliy the functions of State court.
aud juries, whenever in his opinion person
charged with crime under State authority has
acted in the matter forming tho basis Of the
charge in pursuance of any Federal law OF
warrant No aot of Congress, in my judgment
sanctions this principle, Such an act indeed
would be clearly unconstitutional, because in
plain violation Of the express provisions which
requires that the trial of all crimes shall be by
jury.
1t is deeply to be regretted that collisions OF
this kind should occur The authorities OF Ohil
havo never failed in due consideration for the
constitutional rights of the Federal Court, nor
will they thus fail But they cannot admit
without dishonor, that State process is entitled
TO less respect than Federal, nor can they ever
conoede to Federal writs or Federal officials d
Difference which is not conceded to those Of lh,
| QtaNa