The Ashland union. [volume] (Ashland, Ashland County, Ohio) 1854-1868, 1859-08-10
From the Cleveland National Democrat.
The Anti Slavery Bugle Blowing a
Blast at the Morning Leader-A
Terrible Shaking Of Dry Bones.

IeIrlple Snaklng OF Oiy S0H0S.
The AntilS 7arery Bugle, an able Abolition
sheet, publisheda at Salem, Ohio, and with, per-
haps, the largest circulation OF any Abolition
paper in the State, has blown such a blast at,
our neighbor of the Morning L.dder, as that
unfortunate wight never heard before, and will
never wish to hear again.
The Leader had an article some days rsInce,
headed the sFinale of the Kidnappers,"@
meaning, by this term, the persons indicted in
the Lorain Common Pleas, for arresting a Flu
gitive from labor under the Fugitive Slave
Law-which the Bugte thus notices:
The Leader ~italicises the assertion that "The
Kidnappers .re clearly guilty and would have.
been convicted" as if that matter was settled
beyond a preadventure. If so, the ~formality
and expenses of a trial would have been utterly
useless. We are not of those who examined
the indictments, and are probably not acquaint-
ed with more than the general facts of the
case. Our knowledge, however, leads US to.
believe that Jennings & Co. were not legally
guilty of kidnapping, nor do we believe they
would haye been convicted, except upon the
principle upon which Sickles was acquitted,
and which led the jury to disregard, in his
case, both the law and the testimony. Admit
ting for a time the truth of the Leaders ssser-
ton, we are not able to find much consolation
in a remembrance of the fact, that four men
legally guilty of kidnapping, whose conviction
upon trial was certain, and whose punishment
was necessary for the protection of TIE colored
men of Ohio, have been turned loose upon
community for a consideration not known in
law, and a thousand times too dear at the price
which was paid. The Leader, however, tells
as by way of comfort, the Loraini authorities
will prosecute if another kidnapper comes
within their reach How do you know that,
Mr.. Leader? IF your affirmation covered
more ground, we should consider it more relia-
BILE; if you had said they would prosecute or
s,cop, we would have inclined to agree with
you. But if we are to Judge of the future
administration of justice in Lorain by its re-
cent dickering, We have no reliable assurance
that any scoundrel will be prosecuted, provided
he can be snapped off for any of its own citi-
zens under Indictment elsewhere.
In order to make out a triumph on the part
of the Rescucrs, the Leader finds it necessary
to assert that the United States Government
applied for a compromise. This may be SO,
but considering the amount of directly con-
trary evidence, we think it would have been
wise in the Leader to have produced some doc
umentary testimony to sustain its assertion
In the official correspondence which we pub
lished last week, in order to have the record
correctly kept, Jennings & Co., in a letter ad-
dressed to the u. S. District Attorney, explicit
ly state that the Court of Common Pleas of
Lorain County is willing to enter a moNe; pro
Uided that a noUe be also entered in the case
of the, Rescuers. . Does that look like the Uni
ted States Government applying fora comprom-
Use? In a letter of Jennings q Cos counsel,
also addressed to the U. S. District Attorney
they say we have agreed with the. State Off
GERS, that in consideration of the dismissal of
the suit against our clients, to ask you to enter
a noNe in the case OF Plumb, Peck and others.
Does that look like the United States Goyern-
ment applying for a COMPROMISED !. Then we
next have the declaration of Messrs Stanton
and Carter, that neither Belden, nor any other
officer of the United States Government, "hac
any agency whatever, either directly or indi-
rectly, in originating or perfecting the settle-l
menG agreed upon between Messrs. jennings
and others, and the Attorneys engaged in the
prosecutions of the indictments in Lorain
County against them. Whatever responsible
ty is attached to the agreement or settlement
belongs to Messrs. Jennings & Co., and to US
as the friends and Attorneys of the parties,
and to none others The Leader will find
SOME of the people less credulous than it an
t~icipates, if it expects its unsupported declara-
ton to outweigh such testimony as the above.
In the arrangement which was made, one or
two points seem to have been almost entirely
overlooked. One is, that the right Of the le-
gal owner of the boy JOHN to civil remedies
has not been comproniised-he yet retains the
right 10 sue Ior uaHnaSeS, anu VIC ohouiu hoo
wonder if the ~exultant shouts of victory from
the friends of the Rescuers, would prompt him
to show that they are not beyond the grasp of
the Fugitive Slave Law.
"The other point is this: the entering of a
noHe is neither an acquittal nor a final settle
ment; it is simply a discharge for the time be-
ing. Judge Bouvier in his Law Dictionary
says: ''The effect of a noHe prosequi when 3D.
tanned, is to put the defendant without day,
but it does not operate as an acquittal; for tie
man be after1onrds reindicted.'' This being
the case, both Kidnappers and Rescuers are at
any time liable to re-arrest and trial; but this
LIABILITY would operate more unfavorably in the
case of the Rescuers than in that of the Ken
lucky portion of the Kidnappers, for the latter
would be hard to catch again, and according
to Mrs. GLASS; receipt for dressing fish, "you
must first catch your fish"
Poor Leader! So false are its facts, SO silly
its conc usions, that even its party friends take
a delight in showing up the absurdity of the
one and the falsehood of the other. That pa
per discovered a terrible triumph because the
District Attorney, satisfied with the triumph
of the law, was willing, on being requested to
do SO by those more interested, to enter a noUe
it seems that the triumph, although it was
celebrated at Oberlin, was of short DURATION,
and like that of the fellow who caught the
bear found that the victory was on the other
side. i f-9t"il
But as if not satisfied with thus showing up
the Leader, The Bugle continues, and thus
adds insult to injury:
"In regard to the writ ofhobeds corpus, the
Leader says:
eThe difference between a Federal and State
writ of hea6eas corpus is very great. The
State is the general guardian of the liberties
of its inhabitants. Its Judges are bound to
into all kinds of imprisonments and
decide their legality. Their jurisdiction is
general, and no one can decline to obey. But
with Federal Courts it is very different. They
have jurisdictions only where a prisoner is con-
fined on federal law. UnLess II appears that
the prisoner IS thus confined, a Federal Judge
no jurisdiction ,chdtecer and no right to
issue tie acrit. l'7st .safd
"We here experience again the difficulty in
crediting the assertion of the Leader, as we
had unon another noint=a Lack of testimony