M'arthur Democrat. (McArthur, Vinton County, Ohio) 1853-1865, 1863-09-03
A Base Imposition and Perver-
iiCn OF :: Legal Decision.

page 523. The decision was made
before there was any such officer as O |
Provost Marshal created, and was to
settle a question of jurisdiction be
tween the u. S. Courts and State
Courts,i in regard to process Of judicial
Courts. According to the reasoning
Of the Register and his legal advisers,
Mr.. SHADES, or any other Provost
Marshal, is vested with all the powers
Of the U. S Courts. The Marshals
notions or whims may be used as ui
the came power and effect as a judicial
process of the Supreme Court of the
U S, The decision was made under
the Fugitive Slave act. Here is the
quotation referred to by the Register {:
awhile it is the duty Of the Mar
shaI, or other person holding, to make
known by proper return the author,
IlV under which he detains him, it ls
at the same time imperatively his duty
to ohey the process of the United
States, to hold the prisoner under it,
and to refuse obedience to the man.
date OF process of any other govern
ment. And consequently it is his
duty not to take the prisoner, nor
suffer him to be taken, before u State
Judge or Court, upon a habtas corpus
issued under the State authority: No
State Judge or Court, alter they are
JudiciaIly informed that the party is
imprisoned under the authority of the
United States, has any right to inter
tere with him, or to require kim to be
brought before them.
"And if the authority Of n State, in
the form ofa judicial process, or other
wise, should attempt to control the
Marshal, or other authorized officers
or agent of the United States, in res
Pect to the custody of his prisoner, i
would be his duty to resist it, and tC
call to his aid any force that may bt
necessary to maintain the authority o
.1w against illegal interference. NJ
Judicial Process. whatever form it may
"esrne, can h"ve any lawful authority
9teIde 0tthe limits ofthe jurisdiction
the Court or Judge by which it il
''s7el and an attempt to enforce j
oeyond these boundaries is nothing
less than lawless violence"
What Marshal is here referred tC
by Judge TANRYl y Marsha! of the
u. S. Conrt of course, tor none othel
existed. And it was the duty, o.
course, Of the Marshal to obey the
process Of the y. s, COwt. Had
Capt. Cory any process from a U. S
Court Not at all. And consequent y
he could not take his prisoner (of the
US Cour) before any State Jujg,
or Court, without disobeying the
judicial Process of his own court
Lad Capt. Cory any such process t
obeya Certainly not. Again, die
Capt. Cory judicjal'y inform tn,
State Court that he held the prisone,
under or by any process of the U. S
Courts Certainly not, for he had NJ
such process he only acted from
military power, which this decision
SAYS is la,clcss piolencc. Did tn,
Probate Court attempt to interfere
with the prisoner Of a Marshal, helc
by Judicial process3 Certainly not
Then wonld he be justifable in resist
ing the order of tue State Court unde
this decision I No man in his sense,
will for moment 60 contend.
This most nonsonsical position
taken OF this decision in reference t
the jurisdiction Of the process of tn,
U. S. Courts, would render null anc
void every law concerning the process,
of our State Courts, and place us jus
where the Republican leaders wisI
their country-in complete militar,
despotism. The writer of the Regi;s
ter could not, however, end his articl,
without showing his sympathy for tn,
'.po0r fugitive slave," and declarin.
that Democrats now wish to repudi
ate this decision. This we simply
pronounce a lie. No Democrat has
ever repudiated the decision of the
Supreme Court. But you and your
party does it every day.
G. w. Johnston Conduct.
On the day Mr.. JOHNSTON was
nominated as a candidate by the Re.