Council Bluffs bugle. [volume] (Council Bluffs, Iowa) 1860-1868, 1863-02-18

1ss - -
os...,ss s i = - h
rs sxj xswA. rec u. ssss.
ne 60 a scn r. wsss, VI y.
esl5srsu. SksiR Il Pull asansy, u n
wris ii AsbeAs corpus, 70 try the legality
81 sAs pfaatiGs imprisonmsns under the
nero law Of 1857, oams mp Tor hearing
Id shs Distrsss Court, January 26th, Of
which | made D hrisf mantlon IN mlI
lsss letter to the Bsgls. ARCHIE came
snse this State from Arkausas-nos Mis-
soari Il ssfo.s ssAasa 10 1884 he i .
ans, athletic, sssise young negro about
"A Or n years old, worth, in good times,
AZ fsaaE. 900. Tho esss VIVA argued
with much legal sass and lngsauity, By
Mr.. g. 6lBLsT, "a behalf at sas aegso,
Eaaa with grs@s ability By JEsy. .. Pots,
of the firm of CAsaADr D Polk, Of this
| city, On bshalf o. the Sheriff and the pso-I
Vie. coda b .Asssst ~
BEING the arss case ever tried under
the taw 10 prevsnt negroes frsm settling
In the ssats, it 10 one of peeuliss inter
sss Oh ascoaas of the psessdeas to be es-
tablishesi. There Ia great excitement
90 beth the white mans and the negrosa
aide of the question !; and II - thought
chat IL the Court eannet ind plaasihla
prssext for nuiiifying the Law, the Gov
arnor sill oaii an extra sesaion Of the
Legislature to repeal it, ~ he did 70 rs-
peal the dog law. One session wss con-
vsned 10 lsgislats % dogs, why shoald We
not hare another 20 legislaks for niggers
and abolitionlats The people foot the
bill~~who cares
The case also assumes political iIapoT-
tanes, from shs oihcial positions OF par
ties most conspicuous Ia tbs affair. Dir.
STBLRY, who il o United States Commis-
sionsF under shs fugitive slave Law, in-
stead Of exercising bic judicial functions
in rstnrniag this alass 70 bis lawful own
or, il engaged a. an attorney 10 defeat
the obi sGs OF the law for excluding thai
class OF population from this State, while
our nswly elected Secretary Of Ss&ss, un'
deg tho, assumed character OF . protector
: 10 the dc faeso though anlawfall ownsi
OF the negro, whom he has hired out b
one Dir. Baooks. as...sE
PLAINTIFFS counsel took the failowins
position Frat, thai tbs Law L. uaeon
ssitusiunal; lat, bsoaaseA negro ID eisi
zsn of the Uaited States, and entitled D
! all the rights and immaaitiss Of citizsi
of Iowa. The section In the bill Of right
of this State, declaring thai fsall msn are
by nature, free and eqaal,s was oissd /
this connection, to establish the constisa
tional rights Of negroes 90 citizens. See
q ond, because the Law does NOT provide 70
. a trial by jury. The bill Of rights ID
elaraa that fsaay individual shall be ca
: nslsd "te speedy and public trial by q
. Impartial jury.o Third, because tbs i'm
IprissnmenG until tina Ans Ia paid is an o.
!. der which the Justice could NOS make, q
D the i'm priseamsnt mighs be perpssua
! tbsing 'Fcruel and unaaaal punishment
i which ia prohibited by the bill Of right
: His second position was shat the In
1 never took effect. Tbs provision in th
d Law for its taking effect, was by publics
4 ton In the Eossa Tras Democrat, pa
:, per published at Mt. Pleasant By the Re,
!, SsmH StoTria Howe, q swset~sesnted Al
0 olisionist, who, - well - other pess
% negro worshippers, was silly enough
= think that be could Kill the Law by NJ
a Publishing 1t. y
Thirdly, be contended thai IL ewes d
Q law took eifsca, il was repeaied by th
0 Legislature of 1860, in. adopting the ne
4 code Of that year, from which that Ia
was excluded by the codifsr.
MIR. PoLg counsel for the defendant, too
, the counter positions following;
. First, that the judgment and proceed
D iRgs Of rompsteut court cannot bare
/. verssd By this court on writ of h2bsa
corpus, when, a. in this case, the night q
appeal lies; and the plaintiff ooald nc
sue out this writ. In sappors Of this pc
sitien, he cited abundaas Authority In dc
oisious of Supreme Court Of the Unite
States and Of Iowa, Missouri, Georgi
and Maryland.
Second, that ths negro act Of 1851 doe
not conflict vttA sgy provision of the con
stisutiou, and ID not aiteoststssaslloBGI.-
Every State OF the Union has sn inheren
Q soveEeI "a right TO pass Laws excluding an
class Of persons NOT eftESsas If the UNI
ted ttatsS from settling therein. Sc
statutes at large, v /, $40; also ID Ken
{ 70.
, Ii Is idle and fallacious to claim tia
mere abstract declaration Of she nasssY6
f equality Of "al men" in the bill 0
rights, confeFs npon negroes the sam
rights or makes them equal With whis
men, while sash equality IL expressly de
nied them by dazen positive provision
/ Of the same constitution, in withholdin;
from thea &he right of suffrage, the RICH
TO hold oEhee, 10 serve In tha MALTA, &
sit On jaries, DC; aud the Convention
! which framed the Constitution, insteai
, of doing away with The distinction be
tween white men and negroes, suhnistel
the question to the people in q ssparas
proposition. to "striks out the woFi
white" which was vetad down By an o
! verwhelmiag majority. Negroes an 10
diana skaad on precisely the same footinI
as to rights under the Consultation; tho
she difference ia natural rights is great,
in faEor of the Indians, who wers th
: original propristors Of the soil. Ye
they have been driven from IL, aud ar
excla Tod By both Federal and State aa
thoritiass Mr. r. cited . law Of Thu
State passed ia ls5s, pernistiag eestail
Sac and Fox Iadians 10 reside In Tama
ooanty, showing that they hare nat tia
| right unless given them BY Law.
Third, that negro IL wos eiss=es O
tss United States, bat ouly sabjsot
satitis+d TO no privileges, sxeeps saoh al
each State may give him by law.
SEES naturalization laws, permitting
s<aay alien being q free seAass per
500, p and none Other sFto becpms Ell.
| sen Of tbs United Ssasess''@ Also, ls1
Lissell, Kentucky, p. 800; lst Msigs