Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1861-02-20

lCOtt case, arc topuutntvu no NV y tese@~-~
ordinations OF cults originated for political
,urposes, and decided by court which his
been u6scrupulously packed for the advantage
1f the slave power So long 90 judicial circuits
of the United States In the southern States are
multiplied In number until several OF them con
tain about one.titth of the white inhabitants
in northern circuits, and AFFORD only
one.iifh the number OF causes TO be tried, new
and old, and especially go long as it Is an unde.
niable fact that nominations Of able juriss 70
that bench have been systematically rejected
by the Senate OF the Uoited States, merely be.
cause the nominees have been supposed TO oe
uniriendy TO new demands Of the slave power,
it will be In vain 70 appeal to the Supreme Court
of the United States as an authority IN sucn
questions as these. II is bumiiiating that We
should have TO refer to these facts, but when y
is persisteutly urged that the Judgment OF the
assembly Of Ohio should be bound ey the opin.
ion of that court, regard for Legislative rights
and privilege, and our duty to our i'uen {,
demands the plainest statement of the truth
III. Bot tif we were to waive both the oblec-
tions above raised, there are still strong reA-
sons for contending that the Federal Constitu-
ton, even as interpreted In the Prgg csse, can
not invalidate the Ohio law under examination.
| Ia that ca SO, amidst all its sweeping conciu-
siops, two limitations upon the alleged right OF
rec aption are recognized, to wit:
| lat. That 1t cannot be go exercised as 10 Inter
fere with the police regulations Of the tree States;
| and, 2nd That the exercise shall not Involve
breach Of the peace .....
I The Court say: ITO guard, however, against
any possible misconstructlon OF our views, it is
proper to state that we are by no means to be
understood in any manner whatsoever to doubt
or interfere with the police power belonging to
the States, in virtue of their general sovereign
II IT," 16 Peters, 625.
This police power is distinctly admitted in the
same connection, TO apply to many matters
which would more or less interfere with the i'm
mediate reception spoken Of as the rnsster's
right. The declaration that the reception
, must be "without any breach OF the peace OF
Illegal violence is equally explicit ID. p 6l3
/ The necessity of the reception being regula-
ted by, and made in accordance With Legal
{ forms, 10 distinctly recognized In the opinions
, of most IL no. all of tho judges in that case
Thompson, j., says, Id. p. 634: Legislative
proyision, in this respect, Is esstental for the
purpose Of pYeserping peace and good order in
, the community Such casesin some parts Of oul
country are calculated to excite feelings which
if not restrained by law, might lead to riots and
breaches Of ihs peaee:"
Wayne J., says, i'd. p GAO. "It was foreseer
that claims would be made which would be con
tested. Some tribunal wds necessary to decide
them, and 70 authenticate the fact claim bad
been established" 2 eets ~ 7eFsL icAg
Mclean, J., In the most emphatic manner
scouts the notion that the claimant has the
right, under the Constitution, to take fugitive
out of State by mere force. He says, p 66a
"If the master has the right to seize and remove
the slave without claim, he can commit no
breach of the peace by using ell the force peces
sary to accomplish his object. It 10 admitted
that the rights of the master, so far as regards
the services of the slave, are not impaired by
this change; but the mode Of asserting them, in
my opinion, 10 tssehtiatiy modified .tI
He then proceeds TO argue, with great clear
ness and power, that under the Constitution the
master can not remove resisting or unwilling
fugitive withori claim preferred In form Of
Law; see pp $40, GIL, i'd. To quote his Ian
guaRe further : "Tne conflict" be says, "can
only arise between the forcible acts Of the mas.
ter aud the Law of the State. The master ex
hibIts no proof of right to the services of the
slave, but seizes him and is aboutt TO remove
him by force. speak only OF the force exerted
on the slave. The law Of the Stale presumss
him free and prohibits his removal. Nov, which
shall give way, the master or the State7 The
Law OF the State does, 10 no case, discharge the
slave from the service of bis master. IL is q
nost important poLies Tegui alton, aud II the mas
ter violate IL, 10 he not amenable2" .o =
| The whole question Ii summed up by him In q
| few words, viz: al cannot perceive how any
one can doubt that the remedy given In the
Constitution, II fipdeec IL gives any remedy With
out legislation, was designed TO De a peaceful
one, a remedy sanctioned BY Judicial authority,
remedy guGrJe ed BY the foim OF Law up 67l
Having thus the admission vi the whole Court
that the right Of the Sse.s to prevent breaking
OF the peace and riots is incontestibe, that its
right 20 enforce all needful polict reguladons is
bot intended TO be inteffered wilh NJ thA fsdersl
Constitution, and the emphatic declaration OF 90
conservative Judge as Justice Mclean, that
the assertion of the right TO use force In the re-
caption and removal of fugitive, upssnc.loned
"by judicial authority" is plainly uneonst,tu
nondi, oughtthe Ohio Senate 60 make haste 10
pass q bill repealiDg section Of Q Law 60 clearly
declared to be-" most important police regu
lation." is - -a 2.i. tt
Is the right to preserve the peace in Ohio Of
no importance to ~, that It must be 10 lightly
surrendered3 Shall we make ourselves more
respectable In the eyes Of Christendom by pro-
claiming that Ohio has renounced ell power to
hinder the slave catcher from chasing down
fugitive with hounds aud guns upon her own
soil2 Shall we confess that We have 90 far
thro wn away our own sovereignty that the slave
master has legal right TO do what Judge Nc
Lean denies, VIZ; $50 collect q sufficient force
60 put down oil resistance and attain Its OBJ
ject7"N " % 9ai 'i s1 - I-9t 'a7. p
In the opinion Of your committee, the safe
guards OF liberty and peace are not so euper
ABUNDANT that We can afford to break down even
the little one discovered In the section sought TO
be repealed BY this bill ea1e z 'aassf'5 90
The vital point in the Prigg case was the con-
stitutionality of law Of State fixing its own
tribunals and modes of proceeding IN cases Of
reception Of fugidves, and IL is straining the
deci ion 10 that case TO make it apply to police
regulations of the States, necessary to prevent
riots and aflrays, and which in no manner con-
AI,t with the action Of United states courts and
officials Gc1 irsrs5f. Jsealog div Boa
since the case Of Pflgg vs. Pennsylvania was
the one chiefly relied onin sapport.of the bill,
your COMMITTEES does notfeel called upon 10 car
~ the investigation forther. Could be have been
10 bis place as the time the original report from
tho Judiciary committee was made. and have
given bis views either as q minority In that com.
mittee or In the general debate, be would mot
have felt called upon to submit any further CON,
sideratons TO the Senate. :
Repeating, therefore, the Recommendation Of
the indefinite postponement Of the bill, this re-
poi I 10 respectfully submitted. .-f.5 -z-.
Mr.. PARISH moved TO lay the report on'the
table and pnntit. agreed to. stoa n Efrl
Those who voted In the affirmative were--
Messrs. Breck, Brewer. Bonar, Collins, Cup
py, Fisher, Foster, Garfield, Glass, Harrison,
Harsh. Holmes, Jones. Key, Laskey, Mccall,
Monroe, Morse, Perish, PERIL, Potts, Potwin,
Ready, schleich, Smith, sprague, Stanley and
White-2bY f)rra -y--v-x go = s--v---
Those who In the negative were--s