, 1859-05-02

Al las been matter Of surprise bcrea"a..s =
that the Supreme Court Of Ohio should hn's
refused the application Of the 0berlin rescne'f
for writ Of habcas corpus, under which they
sought for discharge from the custody OF the
United States authorities Without e1plana-
tion, it was supposed that the denial was
based upon the merits ofthe case, and that tue
Judiciary Of Ohio had pronounced in favor Of
| the constitutionality Of the Fugitive Slave Inv
| The opinion Of the Court, however, now pub
lisEed shows that the application was refused
| without reference to the points discussed by
the counsel for tie rescuers, and upon the
ground TINT it was not legal or respectful for
tlc State Court to Interfere with the proceed
ings Of the District Court Of the United States
while i cast was pending before it. The
judges say:
Is it legally competent for this Court, to with
draw the relators from the District Court in the
custody Of which they now urc, charged with
tic violation Of an net Of Congress- while tho
proceedings against them are still pending and
undetermined, And discharge them on the
ground that the act Of Congress, upon which.
titc Indictment is based, is unconstitutional and
void?
The District Court now hus possession Of the
case and thu parties to it, md ias the legal pow,
und capacity tn hear and determine, for itself,
tie question of its own jurisdiction and right to
uct in the premises. The legal presumption in
such cases always is, that i Court thus assuming
act, will determine the question Of its own
jurisdiction correctly, until it has acted finally
up IN it.
!f.nce II is rule, founded upon the comfy
WHICH does. and for the prevention Of uupleas-
r:s' collision, should always subsst between ju.
s!icial tribunals. that where il court Of general
jurisdiction and legally competent to determine
its own jurisdiction, has acquired prior urisdic.
ton dt'a7o over person or subject matter, 10
ether court will interfere with. or seek to avert
its action, while the is still pending and un
determined. This rule is sustained and sup
PORTED by all the analog!es Of the law. See
smith ~ 1vcr. : Wheaton, "3:; Hagan rs: Lu-
cas-, 10 Peters. :4v; Taylor rs. Carryl, % How,
III Ex paalc Robinson. Mclean, 3t3 kea-
ting vs.. Spink 6 Ohio State r. lUa. Hurd on
Ilabeas Corpus, Ivy. ct seq.
1t is right in principle md preventive Of un-
pleasant collision between different tribunals
If uuoihee tribunal we're thus to interfere with
uur action and withdraw from our custody
prisoner upon trial before us, md set him at
Large we should resist such attempt to the ut
lrrtnost. And shall We not extend to other trl.
tribunals tie SAME comfy and the same conf
Lcnce that WE clalul Tor ourselves.
After quoting tue opinion Of the Supreme
Gour, Of Wisconsin, in tile case Of Booth, in
which the Court held that it was not their
province to interfere with the District Court
uulil it should attempt to execute its judg-
incnt. tie opinion is thus concluded:
Ou tile whole, VIC are unanimously Of the
opinion that the REALTORS upon their own show
Inr. admitting the Law in question to be uncpn.
,titutiuual and void could not be discharged by
lis, il ihc writ had bccu issued, md they were
now before us for deliverance It would be an
Ale aud expensive ceremony to award the writ
to bring the parties here, and, for tho tsme ill.,
trrrupt proceedings iu said District Court when
.1ur next duty would be TO remand them into
he custody o1 the officer who now holds them.
The application tor writs Of haheas corpus in
clIa oi the REALTORS, is, for the rcasons stated,
refused.
This view Of the case renders examination
II the other propositions mooted In the argu
l.nt, TO the cunstitutlnnNlty ot the act OF
t'Gngleas alycrtcd TO- and the right Of the State
tribunals to inturt-re with the hnal action OF
tie District Courts in that behalf, altogether
unnecessary.
swan, c. j., and Brinkcrhofr. Scott, and Sut-
id, a. j.. copcurred iu the foregoing opinion.
While the application was pending, the Q.
: authorities in Cleveland, where the trials
re going en- and where Bushnell, already
convicted, is III prison. were thrown into
-reat counotiou Bushnell IVES removed from
.se county jail and taken to government
ud;n,, where lie WAS closely watched and
,arled; aud everything bctokeued deter
;nnation ou the part Of the man-huuters TO re-
<ist any process which the Supreme Court
might have granted. When the trials are con-
'ludcu. amt the Federal officers attempt to
..xecule the judgments which the Federal
.o,lrt will pronounce, We shall be surprised if
')llio. through. her highest Judicial tribunal.
,ioc> uu: exert hcr sovereignty, :lnd demand
the release Of her citizens 10 held in durancc
ualey I'LL infamous aud unconstitutional enact
l4Ht.