Ashtabula weekly telegraph. [volume] (Ashtabula, Ohio) 1853-1873, 1859-06-04
From the Ohio State journal, May 3lst.
Habeas Corpus Gases Decided.
Dissenting opinions Of Judges Brnkeho6
and SutlE

]
Dissenting opinions Of Judges Brinkaho6
and SvtliE
The decision Of the Supreme Court, in the
application for discharge of Bushnell aud
Langston, convicted of violation of the Flu
| gitive Slave Act, at the recent term of the U.
States District Court, for the Northern District
of Ohio, was announced yesterday afternoon all
the Judges being present. The decision of a
majority Of the Court, namely Chief Justice
Swan, and Judges Scott and Peck, was against
the prayer Of the REALTORS. Judges Brnkerhoff
aud Sutliff dissented from the majority of the
Court
Whatever may be the conflicting popular
opinions upon the decision rendered by major.
ity of the Court, the people of Ohio will doubt
less regard il as the deliberate Judgment OF the
highest tribunal Of the State, and will respect
it accordingly.
We give below synopsis Of Judge Swans
opinion. We had hoped to have given the
opinion entire in this issue of our paper but it
was retained by Judge Swan for revision. The
synopsis, however presents the main points
Judge swans Opinion.
Judges SWAN, ScoTT and PECK, held -
/. That the provisions of Art. Sec. 2
of the Constitution of the United States ::
"No person held to service or labor in one
State under the laws thereof, escaping into
another, shall, in consequence Of any law
or regulation therein, be discharged from
such service or labor, but shall be deliver
ed up on claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due" guaran-
ties to the owner of an escaped slave the
right of reclamation.
H. That citizen, who, knowingly and
Intentionally interferes with, for the pur-
pose Of rescue or rescues, from the owner
an escaped slave, is guilty of violation of
the Constitution of the United States,
whether the acts of 1893 and 1850, COM
monty called the fugitive slave laws, are
unconstitutional or not.
III. That the question in this case, is
not whether the fugitive act Of 1850 is un-
constitutional in respect to the appoint
ment and powers of commissioners, the al
lowance Of writ Of habeas corpus, the
mode Of reclamation, &c, but whether
Congress has any power to pass any law
whatever, however just and proper, in its
provisions for the reclamation of slave, or
to protect the owner of an escaped slave
from interference, when duly asserting his
constitutional rights of reclamation.
~. That Congress, from the earliest
period Of the government, has by legisla-
tive penalties, vindicated the constitutional
MI Of ha of eIo
full interference.
V. That such legislation was adopted
in 1898 by the second Congress elected un-
der the Constitution, ,icomposed of many of
the members of the Convention who framed
the Constitution has, from that day to
this been in active operation, and has been
acquiesced in by all departments of the
government National and State and the
legislative power of Congress on this sub
iject has been recognized by the General
Assembly of the State of Ohio in their
statutes by the Supreme Court .of the
United States, and by the Supreme Court
Of Massachusetts,, New York, Pennsylva-
MIA, Indiana, Illinois, California, by the
Supreme Court of Ohio on the circuit, and,
indeed, by the Supreme Court of every
State in the Union where the question has
been made, and has never been denied by
the Supreme Court of any State-the
Courts of Wisconsin, Notwithstanding the
popular impression, not forming an excep-
ton.
VI, The right to rescue escaped slaves
from their owners being denied to all citi-
zens of the United States by the Constitu-
win Tod
enforced the prohibition by penalties ; the
Supreme Court Of the United States, and
Courts of the Free States having recog-
nzed and acquiesced in such legislative
prohibition and punishment, if the question
is not thus put beyond the reach of the
private personal views of judges and if
they possess judicial discretion or power to
overrule on the power of their individual
opinions this unbroken current of decisions
and this acquiescence Of the States of the
Union, and change the settled interpreta-
tion of the Constitution of the United S.
then there is no limit, and no restraint up
on judges making at any time, and under
any circumstances, their own individual
opinions, the arbitrary interpreters Of the
Constitution.
VII. Whatever differences of opinion
may now exist in the public mind, as to
the power Of Congress to punish rescuers
as provided in the acts of 1893 and 1850,
no such vital blow is given either to consti-
tutional rights or State sovereignty by
Congress thus enacting law to punish
violation of the Constitution of the United
States as to demand of this Court the or
ganization of resistance. II, after more
than sixty years Of acquiescence by all de-
partments of the national and State gov
ernments, in the power of Congress to pro-
vide for the punishment of rescuers Of es-
capped slaves, that power is to be disregard
ed and all laws which may be passed by
Congress on this subject from henceforth
are 10 be persistently resisted and nulliefd,
the work of revolution should not be begun
by the conservators of the public peace.
Judge Scott orally assented to the foregoing,
as embOdying bis views, especially in its cOnclu-
sions although he intimated that he would, in
written opiuion, give some of the details
Judge Peck delivered an elaborate written
opinion. coinciding with Judges Swan and Scott
~ l. NNH