Weekly Ohio State journal (Columbus, Ohio : 1858). (Columbus, OH), 1859-06-07

              r 7 r- VOLUME XLIX. COLUMBUS, 0., TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1859. NUMBER 11. 4, (Ohio titte DAIIiT, TRI-WKKK1 AND WKMI.T, BT HENRY D- COOHK it CO. Offlw Id Millar Bngi No- 111 E"1 "Sama Tcrmtfnvariahlij m jifwiniv. Dailt, - f ii f wr yo. Rj- tho Caller, per week, 12('j ft. Tui-Wf.sklt, S no ..t ywir. KiiaJabr pu'i.t invKRTiPiNo by the squaiir. (trs USR8 (111 I.CMS KK iyi'ARK.1 One ei'Mira ' yur. 11 on One nnrn 3 wt'k, One w ,: In.ir-thn, t on One 2 wp-k Hue M 1 ttHmthii, 10 Of) j One 1 w.i-k, Ono " 3 iivintlw, ft 00 One " 8 1?y. One " 2 in. mill, C fin I Onu " 2 linyi", Oua " Invmih, A .m Om " 1 d.iy. WKKtiLV AOVKKTISISa. f:i fill 1 iiii 1 IM ppr Square, of MM nmi mure r W, tlm wm ki pi . fnnare, each wik In mMilli-n r.-rnwru, tliru m-uillis TfrSijuB-e, six miiih ... m4 ... r'", ... o.t"1 Per Siii.ni, onn year IHUyud AdvarlisimanU bulf mora lltan tha iiIkivh Alrnrtiementi lp-idi-d and plitwvt in the eoluinii of El-clfll Nutices, douhh th of IiWy rat. All miMn-i tt,"lrl to bo mlilili1 by law, freid rstw. If ord-red on the insid't exeliwWily after tlif flirt week, 60 percent, mow tlmn tli hIm ruli-o; but all inch will im-r ti. Ill Trl-W'klr without ctiftncu. Hnlnaa Card, not Mrwding live )lna, per year, Inalile, fli.Mi per lino; oiitahle J'2. Noti-M)f meetliiKa.clittHtkblotoRletlei, (Ire companies, Ac, hnir prlr. AdTertiflcntt'iitt not arcomwnlt wttb written direction will N- fiwertH till fert'M, nnd tlmwd cronliniily. All Trwimt AditrtU-mtU miul b jW in wfram-a. This rule will not Im varlwi from. Vivl'ir the prflffiit nyHtt-m, the wfwllw ny" no murb for the epnwi lie occupies, tlm clianilf tlx-bur clmwul'li-wlili tl'e conioorltion only. Tlila pUn is mw imntira.ly The Habeas Corpus Cases. Decision ol' the "Majoi'ity of lie Court. Opinion et Chief Juslire Swan, nisNontfiiff Opinions of .liulgrn Itrlnkrrhofl and SnllHI. The dcoiBton of the Supreme Cotir in tlifl np-pVicution for a discharge of Iluslinell nnd LntifrH-ton, convicted of a violation of tiie Fugitive Slavo Act, at the rccout term of tho United Slates District Court for tlic Northern Diptrict of Ohio, wan announced yesterday afternoon, all the Judges being present. Tho decision of a major ity of the Court! namely, Chief Justice Swnn, and Judges Scott and l'eek, vas against (lie prayer of Ihe relators. Judges Urinkerhoffand Hutliff dissented from the niajovity of the Court. Whatever may he the conflicting popukr opin ions upon the decision rendered hy a mnjority of tho Court, the pcoplo of Ohio will doubtless regard it ai tho deliberate judgment of the highest tribunal of tho Slate, and will respect it accordingly. Wo give below a synopsis of Judge Swan's opinion. JUDGE SWAN'S OPINION. J. U. Swak. Oh. J.: It is proper to sny that a Judge of this Court or the Supremo Court of tho Suite in regular session ban no more jurisdiction, or judicial n-iwer, or discretion, in determining questions which arise upon habeas corput than a Probate hiilguot tho county, bach, must be governcu by ihe name rules, and each are invested with the sumo powers no more anu no less. Tho relators being brought before us on halwas onrnim. our inquiry must bo confined to such questions as aro properly cognizable under that writ. Tho return shows that the sheriff of Cuyahoga conntv holds the relators in custody under a sentence and judgment of the District Court of the I1 nitcu States for tho otlimse of rescuing fugitives from service. Tho judgment, of the District Court is conclusive, and precludes all in-qu;ry on habeas corpus, unlets it is a nullity. Waiving all Questions made by counsel as to tho power of a Stnte judge on habeas corpus to declare tho nentenco of a court of general juris-diction invalid, it ii verv clour thm w? ?.inr.'t. on lubvis corpus, go behind the scntenco, and re- j Vll Hi , ..'iiv . i, t Ti. :'.,- hi uiu I co'-ii. Tor instance, if these relators had bet a I tried by a packed jury; found guilty without sufficient proof, and upon an erroneous and I illegal charge of the court, wo could not ! pot asido tho verdict, arrest the sentence or revise tho judgment of tho Court. It Wuiihl, indeed, bo imputing to the counsel of the relators tho wildest and most absurd views of the law to inuniate, that they claim that a jtiUe, on habeas corpus, can go behind h sentence, and roviow aftd revise I ho mode in which a trial was conducted. No such claim in made; but I refer to tho subject, liecause those who are unacquainted with tho limitations upon the power of this Court, when deciding upon habeas corpus, are not probably nware, that a judge; would he guilty of high handed usurpation, und ; would uesurve impeachment, if ho undertook to d if charge tho relators on any assumed ground tuiit they were not, in tact, guilty of rescuing fugitive slaves from labor, or had not had a fair niil impartial trial. ! Neither the verdict of tho jury nor the judgment of tho District Court can bo collaterally impeached, if that Court had ju rind iction of the party nnd otic use. Tho verdicts and sentences of Courts in every case would ho subject to arbitrary intermeddling, and might be set aside and criminals dis-chhrged by any judge who is authorised by statute to issue this writ, if a cnao cot; Id be re-examined and the justice- of the verdict and sentence considered on habeas corpus. And further, if a court, having jurisdiction over an offense created by a valid and constitutional Uw, pronounces sentence, and the commitment under that sentence is returned on habeas corpus, the form of the indictment or tho want of proper allegations therein, cannot bo inquired into; for tho habeas corpus cannot bo converted into a writ of error. In such case tho court, having jurisdiction over tho offense, must itself pronounce the law of the case, and, until reversed by some computent tribunal, is conclusive on nil other courts, and puis an cud to all collateral inquiry on habeas corpus. Ex parte Wat-kins, ii Pet. I'.iiV, In the matter of Prime 1 ltarb. In matter Shaw, 7 Ohio, St. Hep.hl, Hence it is that tho statute itself relating to this writ excepts from those who are entitled to (lie benefit of a habeas corpus all persons convicted of some crime or often no, for which they stand committed, plainly and specifically expressed in tlio warrant of commitment. (Swan s Statutes t.'A sec. 1.) TU District Court, then, having by law, if cou9titiiliut.nl. jurisdiction over the oitense mentioned in the mittimus, and having pronounced sentence, it must he deemed conclusive on habeas corpus. Wo aro bound to take tiie return as true; and if tiie relators could, under any tlnie of facts, bo tinblo to imprisonment for reviling en escaped fugitive in violation m tne i tfvc;ith section of tho net of Congress of IS "til, the relators must bo remanded. I It is tru3 that thcollicor had procured and hns returned with tho mittimus a copy of the record. The mittimus itself, however, was and is his authority for holding the relators; it designates with sufficient certainty tho cause of commitment; and tho fuel that tho ollicer 1ms procured n copy of the record and annexed it to I lie mittimus and made it a part of his return, does not alter our jurisdiction on habeas corpus. The District Court hns exclusive jurisdiction if it havo any; and we cannot revise as upon error or motion in arrest of judgment, the sutliciunoy of the allegations of tho indictment or of the facts contained in it. No one would claim that the criminals who have been convicted of murder in tho second degree and sentenced to tho Penitentiary for life, could bo discharged on Inibens corpus, because the indictment aon-tiiued no nllciiatiou of a tuiriHise to kill; an ingredient of the offense, which this Court has held material and sutistnnttve, nnd wtucli t) h:ue been unable to find in the forms hereiof used. So in this cnae, if, nndor any state facts, a citijten could 1 indicted and punished U'idor Iho seventh section of tho fugitive cl for -wscuing a slave, although Iho other scdio: or mo ct in respect to tho modo in which escaped sks may be reclaimed were unconstitutional and viml, entmoi on habeas corpus look into the Indictment found in a court, authorized to pronounce sentence for such au offense, and discharge, on account of iho want of allegations which would havwjustified the Court pronouncing the sentence, to arrest the judgment, or au ppellalo court to reverse it. If Congress have power to legislate at all, facts may exist in which the legal right of the owner In conce.ted even by the fugitive, independent of all legal proceedings and interference, might be tiniaiiPil. yio only ground, therefore, upon which tho voh-Vs cb be discharged is, to go behind the seventh section of the act, and maintain, that Congress nover had any legislative power under : the Constitution of the United States to provide, punishment for person who rescues an escaped slave. This position, If sustained by the court, cuts I up hy tiie roots nil laws which Iiiivp been pussrd, and all V9 whi-rh nmy herenfter bo paused by Contrrcfs, relating to the rechnnntion of fugitives. It not only disuses of this seventh see-linn of tiie act of 1."J now under consideration, but the whole taw. Neither the case before us. nor Ihe question 1 1nir hrnadly pvesetited, reqniiTS us to consider or determine t lie powers of the court to appoint cotiimicsii)ners, nr the provisions of Ihe law which have been the siibjeet of discussion and condemnation, nnd which have so deeply agitated the public miinl. The question before us is, whether the soventh section of the furitivo Iaw, under which these rrintors were sentenced, is n nullity, for want of legislative powers in Congress, to pass any law whatever relating to fugitives from labor? It will he perceived, then, that we havo no question beforo iff connected with the facts upon whicli the prosecution ot tho relators was round ed; or the mode of selecting the jury; or the proofs; or tho mode in which the trial was conducted; or the errors or imperfections of the indictment; or the constitutionality of any part of the fugitive act, except the seventh section, upon whicli the relntors were sentenced. Tlieso subject a may have a deep meaning nnd an exciting interest to these relators nnd to the public, lint they arc not in ishiie,or the proper subject of discussion or argument in the determination of the question before us. They are, so far as these relators are personally concerned, trilling nnd evanescent, compnred with the consequences which may result from the present action of this Court: for if these relators nre discharged, it must be.I repeat, on the ground that thelnws of 17UII ami 18.111 have always been void, and consequently that these and ail other laws hereafter passed of any kind will now and from henceforth bo persistently resisted by tho State of Ohio. I say, henceforth persistently resisted, became it will be found. I think, that the same adjudication which determines that Congress has no power to pass any law, determines also a precedent, that tho construction of tho Const ilution shall depend upon the shifting of private opinions of every judge in every State who iscalb'd upon to give it an interpretation, whatever may be tho decision of the Supremo Court of the United States. It. must he conceded that the power of Congress to legislate on this subject is as deliberately and fully settled by tho decision of the Supreme t ourt or the United Mates as any other constitutional question that has been presented for its determination. Mooro t. State of Illinois, 14 How. HI: Jones v. Van Zandt, 6 How. Ill",; Prige v. Com. Pennsylvania, Ifi Tel.. W.; United Slates v. IlnothJl How. Hep. That Court have held unanimously that inasmuch as the Constitution of tho Uniled States secures by express provision tho right to tho reclamation of escaped alaves, tho obligation to protect and enforco the Constitutional light devolves upon tho general government. On the other hand it linn been insisted that tho rights of tlio muster to his fugitive slave must, be left to such legislation of the different Stntes as they may deem just nnd expedient; and that tho National Government arc powerless to vindicate or protect his constitutional rights; others are of the opinion that tho power to legislnto is concurrent in Congress and in tho States; others that the Constitution of the United Stntes confers all tho power necessary upon owners of slaves for their reclamation and that therefore neither Congress nor the States can legislate; others that the amendment to tho Constitution, which secures freedom of religious belief, makes provision in relation to tho reclamation of slaves subordinate to it, and hy implication of no obligation upon those who believe slavery a sin. Tho Supreme Court of Massac ihsktts has very fully discussed this question, and also the constitutionality of tho fugitive slave law of 1H50, nnd held that Congress had Authority to pass a fugitive slave act. Thomas Sims' case, 7 Cusb. liep. 285; Common wealth v. (Griffith. 2 Pick. Hep. 11. The Supreme Court of Vrnvivlvanu fKnufT-inan v. Oliver 10 llarr. fH; Wr-tr-Mr. Vvi.uu- g. and Kawle, tli;) ihe Supreme Court nnd court of appeals of the State of New York Mack v. :i until, I- onu. 'in; jnme cnnc, n n imhi. "-(17: l'x p-.rle Floyd v. The Herorder of New York 1 1 Wmd. 1 HI; Olcnn v. Hndges 9 Johns' He(t. 07:1 ino Hi:preme Court of Immasa (Graves v. The Smic, SmithV Indiana Hep. 2"H; 1 Carter fV.fi; Johnson t. Vinamringo,2 Ulnckf. oil;) tho Supremo Court of i.t.txoi-, (Thornton's case 11 Illinois Iktp. ii-.:; hells v. Iho I'copic, 4 cam. Rep. 4,.tfJ; Fan Ley v. Montgomery. Pre. 1 HS; the Supremo Cmrt ff California (In r Perkins, 2 Cat. Hep. 424.) havo all recognicd the purer of Congress to enforce by legislation the reclamation of escaped slaves. The judges of the hupreme ( ourt or (thin, in lH4.'i-4d were Justices Wood, Hurchnrd. Heed j nnd Hitchcock. Three of these judges had'his subject beforo them. Tho Supreme Court, in 1H4H, In regular session in Cuyahoga county, hold by Judges Wood nnd Hurchnrd, brought beforo them on habeas corpus, one Kichnrdson, who was in custody on a charge of kidmipping; he having knowingly aided to carry one Berry, nn escaped slave, out of tho State, wiihotit taking him before a judge or justico of iho county, nnd thcro establishing his right of property in Kerry, agreeable to the laws of the U. S. This wns puni-diablo as kidnappingby tho laws or this Stnte, passed in 1WI, 2!t vol. Slat., 422. Swan's Stat. Ed. 1810, UOO. The court after referring to Iho decision of the Supreme Court of thu United States that nil legislation on t ho subject of tho reclnmntion of slaves in exclusively in Conj?resi. held that the net in question, upon which Hichardson was imprisoned, was null and void, under thnt decision of the Supreme Court of the United State. U buw Reporter, ;iltl. The power of Congress to legislate on this subject wns very ably discussed, and wns fully recognized by Heel, Justice of the Supremo Court of Ohio in l l", in the case of the Slate v lloppess, on habeas corpus. 2 Wcs. Law Journal, 2711. The cases to which I have referred will bo detailed and tho rulings of tho courts discussed by my brother Feck. I have examined, with some care, the reports of the decisions of tho other States, and have been unablo to find a single decision of nny Supreme Court, of any Stuto in iho Union, denying to Congress the puwer to legislnto upon thin subject. The cases decided by the Supreme Court of n isconstn, have been cited as an exception to this uniform and unbroken current of authority Biiatniniiig the legislative power of Congress. One o! the three judges which compose that Court held, that the fugitive slave laws were unconstitutional ami void; but tho majority ol the Court did not participate in that opinion, but discharged iho relator on the ground that the offense charged in the indictment did not contain a sulliciciu description ot the statutory olfcnse described in the fugitive !itve law. The General Acaeiiiblv of thu State of Ohio have also recognized, ill statutes of the Slate, the fugitive hlave taw of IT'.'d ns operative and in foreo. Swan's Slat., Kd.lHHi; o'.wio, Blcs. 22 27. Hut treating Ibis question ns if no decision had ever been made by the Supremo Court of thu United Slates or by any Court of thu free Stales, how dues ihe question stand? If the Constitution of the United Stales had not been formed, nnd u Union of the Stales thus erented, each ns distinct States, would have had tho ri lit, under thefuiidanu'iitnlhiw of nalioiif, to have decided for itself upon its own internal condition nnd regulations in its own territories. If any of them, while thus responsible alone to their own people, should have introduced shivery, oilier Nations or States would havo had unjust right to interfere, nor would the people of foreign Slates be responsible, politicallyormomlly, for it. The Couslilulion of the United Suites was framed, nnd the Union perfected, eubordi-lie'o to( and without violating the fundamental l.w of Mi;:u,iH, to which t lin e alluded; hnd it of would thei. uii-e hae been in vain for the gov- uient of a free State to insist that they would I enter into no emnpact, hecattso shivery is wrong nod unjust. Tin- people and the government of no one Sf.io ,T V Union aro responsible, politically or. . j. ull v, tor the domestic inoittition or regulations nF the others. In the l.im l..c of Ui ion, ttio frames of ttie Constitution guaranteed to tlio owut.sof es caped slaves the right of reclamation. It is made a part of tho Constitution; irrepealable; and to no ehaiiKed only ny ilio power tjiat made it, Hi the form prescribed hy it. It was designed to boa practicable and peace able mode by which a fugitive from service might bo delivered up. It cannot bo extended by implication; the fugitive must not only owe service or lahor in another Slate but must have cs caped from it. This is tho extent nnd the limit of the rlght.of the master, The Constitution of the United States went into operation in Mnroh, 178!). In 1793, the second Congress elected under the Constitution of the United Stntes, and composed of many of the members of tlio Convention' which framed the Constitution, an net was passed providing for tho rendition of fugitives from justice, nnd n summary mode for the reclamation of fugitives from labor. Ity this net rescuers, obstructors and barborers of escaped slaves were to bo visited with a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars. No jurist will deny that if Congress run pro-vide a penal forfeiture tor an alleged violation of law, they havo the legislative power to superadd imprisonment for the entno offence; and that no court can pronoiinco (ho one constitutional nod tho other without legislative aulhori- This law wns passed by Congress without any trnces in history of constitutional objection; hns been ever since that lime by every department of the government, national nnd state, not only received andacquiesced in ns the law of tho land, but in active, practical operation throughout evory State in tho Union. Enacted at the commencement of our government, it has been in operation for sixty six yonrs. It is conceded by tiie counsel for the relators that if Congress have no power to legislate on this subject, they never had any power to legislate upon the subject of fugitives from justice. Tho snmo reasons for holding that tho one Is a usurpation of legislative power, is equally fatal to tho other. Jtoth stand precisely on the j same ground. Tho Executive dcpnrlmcnti of tho States! of the Union have, I believe, acted upon, j and I am not aware that any havo denied, 1 the constitutionality of the law of Congress for tho rendition of fugitive criminals. 1 It may now bo well asked if such a long period of recognition nnd acquiescence in the existence of n law is to he disregarded and the law itself annulled, whether there be any thing in our government so settled nnd sial ic, ns not to be liable to attach nnd overthrow, to vacillation and change; and if after this lnpse of time anew nnd yet untried experiment upon this nnd all other irritating questions of constitutional Inw is to be entered upon, mid n precedent set, by tho judges of this court, that no question can bo put to rest by time nr acquiescence, when will tho construction of the constitution be settled and the Innd marks of the several departments of the government and tlio States be permanently fixed? We have nn unbroken and uniform current of judicial decisions recognizing tho legislative do we r ol Congress upon this sutij.'ct to tho I p. cscnt time. 1 If its authority Is now to bo resisted by the State; if her government is to repel hy force, now nnd hereafter tin; aulhorities of tho United States in t'to execution of any and every law upon this subject, does it become the oflici:il conservators of the public penco, to break through those judicial sanctions which guide and limit their personal discretion and nro tho only safeguards ngainst arbitrary and capricious tyranny, and be the first to initiate such a civil commotion?I am of the opinion, and I think the calm judgment of others will concur with the opinion, that in view of ttit-se decisions of tho Supremo Court of the United Slates, settling the power of Congress in view of tho adjudications of the Courts of tho free Stales, nflirming the same power in view of Ihe ocquiescenco of all departments of tho National nnd Stato governments during two generations that the .lodges of a Slato Court have no judicial right to iuter-poso their own individual opinions upon a question thus disposed of change the interpretation to what they believo it should be overrule tho adjudications of tho Supreme Court of Ihe United States nnd tho State Courts strike down tho legislative power of Congress now and from henceforth resist, nnd persistently, on the authority of their privnte judgment and judicial discretion thus assumed over the inter prctation of tho Constitution of tho United States, tho future exercise of all authority by every department ot tlio National government, nnd force upon the Stato of Ohio and its people Ihe maintainiinco of tho authority o" fjjim'i' i. i.-- sniu by thu counsel for tho relator., that these are two separate cases ot habeas corpus, in which the court simply discharge two persons from what it liiiuks unlawful imprisonment; that their decision may be reversed on error by tho Supremo Court of the UnitedStales nnd there end. We do not think so. If no dis charge these relators upon the nnniincialion of the principle that Congress has no powertopass any fugitive law,tlut prim iple become instinct with life nnd action thioughuiit the State of Ohio, gigantic in dimensions und S'ate govern-menial force, imperatively demanding out li-t'tice from every citizen and otiicerof tlio St.ite and National Government as Ihe supreme law of tho laud, and practically nullifying any law hereafter enacted hy ( ongress, however cuatt- tutionul in its detailed provisions it may bo, It is not simply these relators this Court is dealing with, but alsoconstitutional law. These prisoners can only be discharged by this Court declaring that Congress has no power to legis-tale. If litis Court say that, do they menu it only ns to these relntors. nnd that tho acts of Congress have operation nnd effect in Ohio ns to every body td.-e.' Anu if, after striking down the legislation of Congress in this cose, will this Court wait until (ho Supremo Court of the United States have reversed their judgment, be foro giving force and effect to tho law ot case.' If this ('ourt hold that the nets of Con gress are void, they nro inoperative nnd prncll cully void, as if never ennuted, from that mo men!, through every department of the State government, whenever and howovcr the question may nriso. As to the national government, throughout all its departments, the power of Congress to legislate, will be acknowledged, and tho laws held valid nnd in full force and binding obligation upon iho people of Ohio, notwithstanding tho decision of this Court to the contrary, and whether a writ of error is sued out in (his case to reverse our decision or not. Hut it is said that tlio National Government would bo content to permit the laws of Congress to remain inoperative in Ohio unlit their constitutionality could bo examined into and decided by the Supremo Court of tho United States. Perhaps they would; for great forbearance Is due from each sovereignty. Hut I am somewhat surprised that those who are so anxious fortius Court lo utterly disregard and repudinie and practically reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of iho United Slates and the decision of the State Courts, mildly looking to that Court to settle what has already been settled and determined by that Court, nnd declared by it to be without doubt or question. 1 do not perceive how it can bo seriously asserted, that there is any question in this caso whicli tho Supremo Court of the United Slates would deem an open one for consideration or adjudication; nor can 1 perceive if the decisions of the Supreme Court are now lo be disregarded, why i hey may not continue to be disregarded; nnd while the United Stales nro engaged hero- it 1'ler from year to year in obtaining the barren fill Ms ot reversals of Ihe decisions of our Mnto tribunals, the legislative power of Congress may not in the meantime Ihj persisleiitly denied and repudiated indefinitely. When will this happy slate of friendly liti gation in tho Supreme Court of tho United Mates begin. ll in the meantime, Iho power ol Congress in denial and resisted ns n usurpation bv the Slate ol Ohio. Is the duty of the .Nation- nl government less imperative to enforce her authority and resist what she believes usurpa tion than t lies Male government No goveriimcnial rule can bo evolved by construction from the CoiiMimtioti of the Uniled Statis wilhuiit practically becoming a part of the Couslilulion itself. Thus if, in Ohio, no laws can be passed for the recbinmtiotiof slaves by Congress, but laws on. that subject maybe passed hy the tioneral Assemtilv; nmi Illinois, nnd the other frco stutcs which have Acknowledged the decision in ihe Prigg case, laws enneted by Congress lire exclusively operative, and the laws ot their Mate logisia-tuies nro void: that no tariff law shall be operative in South Carolina, but shall heevcry where else valid; if in Mississippi and Alabama the taw ngmiibl ihe slave trndu is held unconslllit-ti"'a1 and void a:id in every other Stnte enforced, it will be set-n Ihe Constitution, by i.'er-preialion, will become different in the dli.erent Stales. Now, if this enn bo done as to one prt. vision of the Constitution, it can bo done us I nil others. K n h State construing It in its own way, to promote its own local interest, what would the Constitution of thu United Slates become but a hydra of more than thirty heads, uttering ltnlad, and contliclingcomtunnds, iu h ns ench State in its own jurisdiction deemed it expedient I o obey, or parly strife drum tided. That this stale of things wns foreseen by the f earners of (ho Constitution of (tie Uiiiltd States noonn denies. That thcro is sumo remedy provided for it, all admit. The extent of that remedy has sometimes been questioned, and I do not propose to discuss it. The Constitution of the United States declares: "that the Constitution and laws of the United Stntes, made in pursuance thereof, shall be tho su- , preme law of the land, and the jddges in evory fltato shall be bound thereby any thing in the 1 Constitution or Uwb of any State to tho contrary notwithstanding.'1 This was the first step. The next was providing for a judicial department in ihe General Government, and declaring tltnt "the judicial power shall extend to nil cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made," Ac, Art. Ill, Sec. 2. Now, with respect to tho boundary of jurisdiction between the Federal and State governments, I do not desire to Bay anything but this: that when Congress has undertaken to enforce, by legislation, a right guarantied by the Constitution iiself, after tho power has been recognized by nil Ihe highest judicial tribunals of (lie States of tlio Union before whom the question has been presented; ncquicscd in by tho country for sixty-six yearn; and if superadded to these eiruumstnnces, the federal tribunal in cases arising under the Constitution, repeatedly hold that Congress have tho power, it is too lato for the judges of the Courts of Ohio upon their private judgment to deny tho power. Again, without asserting myself the truth of the converse of nil the following propositions. it is. I think. rdnr that to maintain our r iff lit to do so, we must hold: 1st. That wo have tho power under tho Constitution to determine this question in direct conflict with the settled interpretation of the Supremo Court of tiie United Slates. 2d. That we have a right to maintain by the powers of every department of our Stale , government, and to oxactnhcdicncc as well from United States officers ns from nil the citizens of IheStnte.toour interpretation of the Constitution. : :td. That this power, on our part, we havo a right to exercise when it happens that n ma jority of our Judges are intellectually satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt upotrtheir minds, from a review of tho grounds upon which the federal tribunal and others adopted an interpre- i tation of nny provision of tho Constitution of tho United States, that (hey wcro mistaken. 4th and lastly. As wu must nmintiun that we have ihe judicial right to overrule theirprcvi-ons adjudications nnd enforce obedience to our own, which nro in conflict with theirs; so, subsequent decisions on error, overruling ours not being intellectually satisfactory tons, we may, in tho exercise of tho same judicial right and power, disregard them. For, the idea of first asserting the power to overrule their interpretation because we believe it orronious, J and afterwards submit to it, although still believing it crrniiiom, would bo a most undignified and useless assumption of temporary puwer, merely creating agitation, and ending in nothing but submission. It seems lo me quite clear, thnt if the individual opinions of every judge is to becomo the exponent nnd construction of the Constitution of the United States whenever he feels certain that ho is right, without regard to tho decisions of the highest Irihunnls of the country, then the individual opinions, of ovcry judge, is theConstilu-(ion, not only to himself, but for the time being, to tho country. This, it seems to me, is simply discretion without rule, guide, precedent, or Hmitntion unstable, capricious despotism. Is there any judicial incident more common lhan for a judge to deny himself the individual descreiion of declaring whnt tie thinks even tho unwritten law of tho land should be, and hold his judgment amenable to the law as it lias been decided And is tho Constitution to be less stable than the unwritten law? Is a judge lo treat tho settled interpretation of the Constitution announced to the country in a previous generation, by Congress assuming to legislate, sanctioned by an unbroken current of judicial decisions, ns of no binding judicial obligation, and to be overtirown by tho authority of his individual convictions that the constitution should havo a different interpretation? And If a State judge can thus, by his interpretation, al ter the Constitution when it bus received such ncqueseenro and sanction, what V.rpvjjyonjjr,')!', fio j ch.utfio and alteration, under Iho us&mnp-liun of such judicial power? They would be written upon sand. For myself, I disclaim the existence of any such judicial power. Two governments, state and national, over tlio snmo people, each exacting obedience within the sphere of its own sovereign powers, could not lie adjusted without occasional conflict. Hut such a government, of more than thirty sovereignties, each jealous of the powers of the national govcriit.-ent, ench interpreting for itself tlio powers of t'ie national sovereignty and its own, nnd the rational soveripiity interpreting llioirs, and Claiming powers uunied to it by the stales, each clashing and conflicting, and all demanding and enforcing obedience from tho same people to their inconsistent and contradictory commands such n government could havo no p"rmaueiieo and would not deserve it. It would be the worst of all governments. If tho the federal judiciary is not the arbiter, created by iho constitution, to bring order and uniformity out of such confusion and anarchy, there is none. It is true the judicial departmont of the National or Mate Government might, under pretence of an interpretation of the Constitution bo guiliy of a palpable violation of its provisions demanding tho impeachment and condign punishment of the judges; nnd it might bo thu duty of every oilier constituted power of the State and of tho people to resist such treaaona- 'de practices, And oven conceding that it would bo tho duty of n State todeny the authority of tlio Supreme Court of tho United Stales to enforce upon a Slate nn interpretation of tlio Constitution, which palpably and clearly violated resorved rights or State sovereignty, is there any thing in tho history of tho act of Congress, of 17',i:; the quiet ami almost unanimous adoption of it by Congress; lis long continued operation without objection to the authority of Congress to legislate; no Stale, after the lapse of sixty-six years, denying tho legislative authority, and recognized ny every mate in which mo question has been raised; do, 1 sny, such circumstances demand of a Slate Court to assume the power of disregarding tho nettled interpretation of tlio Sunreme Court of tho United States, and resisting the authority oi mo national uovcrn- iiicnt. It wns said by Mr. Madison: "It may bo misfortune, that in organizing any government, tlio explication of its authority should bo tuft to any of its co-ordinate brunches. There is no example in nnv country where it is otherwise, ;l Klliott'fl Debates, 6;t2. And, I may add, it cannot bo otherwiso without intestine war or civil commotion. I The sense of justice of the people of Ohio has been shocked by some of tlio un just provisions of the fugitive nets, il ls not tho authority of Congress to legislate that they deny, hut it is the abuse of thu power. I hat ttbiio is to lie remedied ny congress; nmi if'the power to legislate is denied, tho question can be put an end to by repeal. It is tho only ConMitutioiial mode left. Tho other alternative is intestine war and resistance of our National Government. All must admit that the owner of escaped slaves is entitled to their reclamation. Good fiiiih lo sister States demand it; and thoro Would be tin resistance in Ohio to a fair and just law affecting that object. As lo who shall legislate upon tho subject, if the provisions of tho law secures its execution from all abuse, and by whose instrumentality It shall hchumauii-ly carried out, is a quesiion upon which no in-lense public feeling could bo exoiicd. For myself, a a member of this Court, I disclaim the judicial power of disturbing tho sel-ted construction of (he Coiistitutionof the United Slates ns to the legislative authority of Con-if r ess uiioti the subject, and I must refuse tho experiment of initiating disorder and govern mental collistou, lo cstatuisn order ami even-handed justice. I do not repent hero tho judicial arguments sustaining the power of 'Congress, which have been pronounced by some of I no soundest nmi wisest bulges that have adorned tho American bench for it is my delil 'Tine and confident conviction, (unswayed by my feelings ns a eitiien of a free St,.t , v ): n dealing ns a judge with this neces-san sin.' ,'iin iho National Compact of Union ,ri""i'lillio argument lor the denial t may preponderate, (tlintt lioqoes- jP" '.iino, acqtiiesonco and adjudication .jcvoud the reach of judicial considera- ii.,.. of preponderance of argument; certainly boy ond thu roach of question before this Court. As a eitiien I would net deliberately violate tho Constitution or tho Inw by interference with fugitives from service. Hut if a weary frightened slave should appeal lo me to protect hi in from his pursuers, It in possible, I might momentarily forget my allegiance to tho law and Constitution, and give him a covert from those who wcro ou his track thcro aro no doubt many slave- holders who would thus follow tho instincts of human sympathy. And if I did It, and was prosecuted, condemned and imprisoned, and brought by my counsel before this tribunal on a h-.iieas corpus, anil was then permitted to pronounce judgment in my own ease, I trust I should have the moral courage to say, beforo 0 d and the Country, ns I am now compelled to sV, under tiie solemn dutiet of a Judge, bound by toy official oath to sustain ihe supremacy of the Constitution and the law: "Tho prisoner m ist be remanded." Judge Scott orally assented to tho foregoing, ns embodying his views, especially in its conclusions; although he intimated that he would, in a written opinion, modify some of tho de-tat j. Judge Peek delivered an elaboruto written opi jion,coincidingwith Judges Swan and Scott, comprising n review of the decisions of ihe Courts, am particularly of the Slato Courts, upon tho questions involved in the case, and treating tho whole matter ns a rei adjudicate, J ldgo SutlitT also read a dissenting opinion, taking tho gronnd that according to tho established rules of construction, no authority for Congress to pass Iho Fugitive Act could be found in tt e Constitution. Judgo BrinkorhofF also dissented from tho liiaxiiy of Cue Court, in a forciblo opinion, which we give below. JUDGE BKTNKKRHOFF'S OPINION. Hm.ykkr.uofi' J., said: Since tho close of tho argument of these cases Suudny and a visit to my family intervening I have not had time to do more than hastily to sketch a brief outline of my opinion on the questions they present. This I give; and I may ond may not, as leisure or inclination may prompt, commit thorn to paper, with tho reasons on which they rest moro fully and in detail hereafter. 1. Under the advice of tho District Attorney of tho United States, the indictments under which the relators were convicted, nre appended to, atid form a part of tho return to these writs. The question whether ihey charge u crime or not, Is therefore bofore us. H uh indictments arc fntally defective, in this, to wit, that neither of them aver that John was held to service or labor in tho Stnte of Kentucky "under the Inn therrut. d section, 4th article, Constitution United Stntes. 1. This defect is not a mere error or irregu larity, ii u were, so tar ns this point is con cerned, we should bo obliged to remand the pi-honors; for the writ of Jluhean Crpun cannot be m ade lo perform the functions of a writ of error. Hut 2d. This defect is an illegality, 'ihe averment omitted is of the essence of thocrime; without Iho fact omitted tobo nv,errcd, thcru is no crime; for it is no crime to rescue from custody a person held to service or labor in anoiher State otherwise than "uniler tho laws thereof." If there was no crime charged in tho indiciinent, the judgment of the District ('ourt of tlm United Stnus under which the relators are held, is tarnm nonjud-re and void; they areiltegally resirnined of their liherty, nnd they ought tube discharged. I). 1. Tho indictment against Bmhncll contains but one count, which charges the rescue of John frn-n the custody of an ngent of the claimant of his labor and service in Kentucky John having been arrosted und held in custody without warrant or any color of legal process. It appears, ihen, on tho faco of tho record-whLh ie made a part of the return to this writ, that here was a persom domiciled or sojourning in Ohio, a free State, and therefore presumed in law to bo a free man, "unreasonably seiicd'' and "deprived of hia liberty," not only "without due process of law,'' but without tho pretense or color of any process whatever. This arrest nnd rustody was in direct contravention of tho fourth and- fifth articles of the amendments to the Constitution of tlio United States. The rescue of a person thus "unreason ably seize i-d" nnd "deprived of his libortwh, nrcfrfvjf ;hj jocediire'V. liich attempts to tuakuontreat it as . crime, is unconstitu- tional an i Aoid, 2. The indictment ngainst Langs ton has two counts; the first of which is entirely similar to that ng.:tt Uu'imc'ii; nnd tho so con d of which alleges u similar rescue of John while nrrestcd and held in custody under ft warrant issued by a Commissioner of tho Circuit Court of tho United Stntes, authorized hy net of Congress to issue such warrant, and, under the authority thereof, to arrest, hold, nnd remove the person described therein to u foreign jurisdiction ns a slave. The acts of Congress referred to clearly attempt lo confer on these commissioners i.ie powers and functions of a court; to hoar and determine questions of Inw nnd of fuel; nnd to clothe their findings and determinations with that conclusive authority which belongs only to judicial action. And tlio issue of the warrant mentioned in tho indictment was a judicial net. These provisions of the acts of Congress referred to, nnd nil warrants issued under (hem, ore unconstitutional and void, for (ho following reasons: These Commissioners nro appointed by the Circuit Courts of tiie United States only; hold their office at the will of such courts; and are paid by fees. Whereas, hy tho express provisions of Ihe Constitution of the United Stntes, Art. 2, Sec. 2, and Art. fJ, Sec. 1.) Iho judicial functionaries of (ho United Stntes musl be appointed by the President, by and witkthc advice and consent of the Senate, hold their offices during good behavior, and receive a fixed compensation whicli may not bo diminished during their continuance in office. The warrant of such a commissioner, therefore, is a nullity; it could ntlord no authority to hold John in custody; and to rescue him from such illegal custody could not, by (he law of the land, bo a crime; and tliercf'oro tho imprisonment of Langsum 'iy way of punishment of such pretended crime, is nn illeiral restraint of his liberty, and he too. ought, therefore, to be discharged. III. These relators ought to bo discharged, because llicy havo been indicted and convicted under an net of Congrcsstipon a subject matter in reference to which Congress tins, under Ihe Constitution of (he United Stutes, no legislative power whatever. As to ttie correctness of this proposition, there dors not r'M on my mind tho shadow or glimmer of a doubt. The federal government is ono of limited powers: at dull powers not. expressly granted to it, or necessary to carry into efVeci such as nre I expressly granted loil by the terms of tlio Con- ' stiiutioii, nro reserved to tho Stales or tho people. Amendments, Art. 10. "No pet son held to service or labor in one Slate, uiul.r the laws thereof, r-cuping into another, shall, in cuncqucnco of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or tab--', but shall bo delivered up on claim of iho p'irty lo whom such scrvico or labor may be line." Art. 4 Sec. 2. This is the only clause of the Constitution from which any body pretends to divine, or in which any body .pretends to find a grant of power to Congress lo legislate on tho subject of ihe rendition of fugitives from labor. I can find in it no such grant. The first pari of it simply prohibits Statu legislation hostile lo the rendi tion of fugitives from labor. Such fugitive shall not bo discharged "in consequence of tiny law or regulation' of, the Slate into whicli he'shnll escape. Hut shall bo delivered up." Hy whom? Bji Congress? Hy tho Federal au lhorities? With art tin uch vnrdt; and such idea is hmtcd nt. This is evident from nn inspection of the wholo of the preceding portion of thi- article. An. 4. See. 1: "Full faith and credit shall bo given in ench state lo (he public acts, records, nmi judicial proceedings or every other State. And the Ofuqrts nmy ftrntral hwi prrteribc tht nmiintr in which wh nr.t, remrdx, and prorrrd-itvt hall 6 provtd, and the rFecf therm.'' Here, in tho tirai ptnee, is a compnet Iwtwccn tin slates respectively nn agreement of the severnl states to and with ench oilier, that tho "puhlio acts, records, and judicial proceedings," of each shall have "full faith and credit" given to them in all. Had this section closed here, would any one olnini thnt it embraced nny grant of legislative power to Congress? I ih'ink not. Hut the framcrs ot the constitution thought thnt Congress ought to have the power "to proscribe (he mnniier in which such nets, records, and proceedings, should bo proved, and tho etlect theieof;'' and hence they gave tho power in ex press terms. When they intended a grant of power to Congress, and not a more contract stipulation by, or injunction of duly upon the states, thftfwy to, and leave us no room for cavil on the subject. Hut let us go ou Sec. 2. "Tho citizens of ench state shnll be entitled to -ill privileges and immunities of ciii- seni In tht several states. 11 A lie. ton eh it r pod in ativ atnto wilh trousoi. felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and bo found in another: State, shall, on demnnd of the executive author- 1 ity of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to le removed to tho State having jurisdiction of the crime." That theso clauses of section two nre mere articles of compact between the slates, dependent nn ttie good faiili of tlio States alone for their fulfillment, I suppose no one will dispute. They do nut confer upon Congress any power whatsoever to enforce ihoir observance. Then follows tho last clause of section two, in respect to fugitives from labor or service, first quoted. And this, like nil the other preceding clauses of his article, except the first, is detiiule of any grant of power, or even nllusion lo Congress or the federal government. Now, if a grant of power to Congress was here intended, why this silence? If the frnmers of the constitution intended n grant of power to Congress in tiiis clause, why did they not say so, i s they did say in the first section, in respect in "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings?" Ii seems to mo that no rational answer can be given to this question, except by a denial of such intentions. Eiprntio vniut ezelusio altcriut, is a legal maxim as old as the common law. The express meutpn of ono thing implies the oxclusion of things not mentioned. It is the dictate of reason nnd common sense. It is a maxim which applies alike in tho interpretation of contracts, statutes, and constitutions. Its application wns never more obviously proper ' than to the question before us; and when np-plied, It scorns to me to bring with it a force little short of mathematical demonstration. Thug far I have reasoned as if we wore ig norant of tho history of the constitution. Hut! a glance at that history confirms the conclusions to which we nre brought by the ordinary rules of interpretation, and makes " assurances doubly Bin e." The Articles of Confederation, under which tho struggle for independence was carried th ough, niul for which the present Constitution of the United States is a cubslitute. contained nothiny nrlicles of compart. The fulfillment of its obligations was dependent upon Iho faith of the Stales alone. The Congress could make requisitions, but had no power to enforce them. Again: Certain provisions of tho ordinance of 17S7, for the government of tho territory northwest of the Ohio river, were in express terms declnred to bo ''articles of rotnpacl." Now, every one of tho clauses of the fourth article of the Constitution nbove quoted were borrowed ami transferred, with but slight verbal alterations, from tho articles of confederation and tho ordinance of 177 the first three from the former, and the Inst from (he latter with this exception only, (hat to ihe first of these clauses was nddod a grant of power tn Congress to prescribe the manner ol proof nnd efle'it of public acis, records, and judicial proceedings. Here, then, we have certain articles of compact admitted or declared to be such, and nothing more borrowed nnd transferred from one instrument to another, with no intimation of any c limine id' theirchnraclerasnrlicles of compact, except, in a single instance where the change is expressly declared. The inference seems to me to bp irre sistible, that, except so far ns the change is ex. prcsaly declnred, they remained, after the trans fer, tho same as they were before articles of compact, and nothing else. 1 I conclude, therefore, that the Plates nre bound, in fulfillment of their plighted faith, nnd through ttio medium of their laws, legislation and functionaries, to deliver up the fugitive from service or labor, on claim of the party to whom such service or tabo may be duo under the laws of another State from which the fugitive has tied. But tho federal government has nothing to do with tho subject, and its interfer ence is sheer usurpation of a power not grant ed, but reserved. Hut, it is said, the question is settled, and our argument comes loo late. I deny that it is settled, Tlio federal legislature tins usurped a power not granted by the Constitution, and a federal judiciary has, through the medium of reasonings lame, halting, contradictory, and of far- ; -,'.i.i4- u Jinnwp uipu.ry, suncuouuu me usurpation. I deny that tho decisions of a usurping party in favor of the validity of its own assumptions, can settlo any thing. It is true that I ho courts and legislatures of several of tho Stales have decided in the same way; but ihey hai uuui decisions of uequiesctiico lather lhan of original and independent inquiry. The fact that such jurists us Hornhlowcr, Walworth and Webster thought on this subject as I think, shows that the question is not settled, The fact that a majority of my brethren, as I understand them, admit (hat if tliis were a now question they would be with me, n.-i that they yield the strong leanings of their own minds to the force of tho rule of ret uadjudieta nlouo, proves that this question is not settled. The truth Is, it is not until recently that I he mass of intelligent nnd inquiring mind in this country has been brought to bear upon this question. It required the enactment and enforcement of tho fugitive slave act oi' lSoii, overriding (he must sacred and fundamental guarantees of Iho Couslilulion, and disregarding in its provisions oven (ho decencies of legislation, as if for tho vury purpose of irritation nnd humiliation, and the fine and imprisonment under it of white men for the exercise of tho instinctive virtues of humanity, lo awaken general inquiry. That inquiry is now going forward. And so surely ns the matured convictions of the mass of intelligent mind in this country must ultimately control the operations of gowrnment in all its departments, bo surely is this question not settled. hen il in settled ri-l.t, then it will bo settled, and not till then. Hut, cotemporaneous construction is appealed to. 1 admit its weight, nnd its title to respectful consideration. Hut cotemporaneous construction speaks with a divided voice. It is true, CongresB as early as 17'.i:(, legislated for the return of fugitives from labor. Hut nearly if not quite every one of iho old Stntes had also legislated on the same subject in fulfillment of what they deemed a matter of constitutional obligation resting on them. And such legislation on tho part of tho States, old and new, continued until the Supremo Court of tho United States, in the Prigg case, ns lato as 1HI2, (111 Peters, ;"i W,) assumed for tho federal government exclusive authority over Iho subject. And thou who appealed to cotemporaneous construction should themselves respect it. From the foundation of the government until within tho last ten years, Congress claimed and exercised, without question, full and complete legislative power over the territories of ihe United States; and ns early ns I-', in Ainorienn Insurance Company v. Canters, ( 1 1 o- ters, filii.) tho Supremo Court of tho United States, Chief Justico Marshall delivering its opinion, unanimously decided that in Iho terri tories Congress rightfully exercises tuo "combined powers of the general and of a State government." Vet, in iho recent ease of Dred Scott v.Snndford, (IV Howard, nil this is overturned and disregarded, and tho whole past theory and practice of the government in una respect Attempted to be revolutionized by force of a judicial wedud. Wv are thus invited by that Court back to tho consideration of first principles; and neither it nor those who rely on its authority have a right to complain if wo ac cept the invitation. I know of no way. othor than through the ac- lion of Ihu stale ttou'i inneuis, in which (lie re served riifhtn and imi'tof the states can ho pro. served, and the guarantees of individual liberty bo vindicated. The history of thiscoiiutry, hrief as it is. already sluiws that the federal judiciary is never behind the olher departments of that government, and often loivmost, in the assump tion of noii-niiinled powers. And let it be finally viel led, that federal government is. in tho last resort, the authoritative judge of the extent of its own powers, ami the reservations and limitations of the constitution, which the framcrs of that instrument to jealously ondoav-ored firmly to fix and guard, will soon be, if they are not. already, obliierutcd; aud that govern. ment, the solo possessor of the only moans of revenue, in the employment of which Ihe people can be kept iirnuranl oi the extent ol their own burdens, and with ils overshadowing patronage. nt I meting to its support the ambitious by means of its honors, and tho mercenary tlirouuh the medium of its emoluments, will speedily become, if it be li'd already, pvactieully omnipotent. These wcro my opinions, freely declared, for years heforo I had tho honor of a saat on this bench; ami, having learned nothing during tho pendency of these enses to change, but much to confirm them, 1 know no reason why 1 should hesitate to avow them now. 1 give my voice in favor of the discharge of the relntors. Robert Ilosea F.sq., of Hamilton county, who has been appointed by the Governor, as Special Kxnminer of the Stato Treasury, has arrived In the city and entered upon iho discharge of tho duties of nia appointment, (Nitorials, The Fugitive Aol. Wo give elsewhere a few extracts from the legislative records of Ohio, showing how frequently nnd earnestly the people of this Stnte havo protested, through their Legislature, asainst the fugitive slave net. Tho first of these protests wns interred even before that net hnd received the outward form of law. Hut the warning voice of tho people was disregarded. Tho bill was pressed through Congress; two years nfterwnrds, the resolutions adopted by the national conventions of both parties nt Hnl-limnre, indorsed ihe compromise measures, chief of whicli wns this acU nnd mark tho result! The popular sentiment of the free States revolted nt that indorsement, and the gallant old whig party, in Iho defeat that followed, fought its last battle. Emboldened by the success of its demands, the Slavery Interest asked of the Free Labor Interests stilt other concessions. It found a willing tool in a prominent northern leader of tlio Democracy. Mr. Douglas succeeded in obtaining its demands demands that probably would not have been conceded, if they hnd first been put forth by a southern leader. The pledged faith of the nation, section with section, was broken, and tho lerritorleH set apart to free labor wore thrown open to fllave labor. Then followed another overwhelming outburst of popular indignation, and nearly every free Stnte thundered its protest against this wholesale robbery of the domain of freedom, First among them to utter her voice, was Ohio. Planting tier standard far in advance of the rest, she ha1" ever since firmly maintained her pi.md poliini.. Bui oilier northern Stales fullered, :.nd V u ugh their delinquency in the Presidential cc.hsl of 18.115, the fo-ciillcd Democracy won another triumph. Another success of the Slavery Interest, was followed by another encroachment upon the Free Labor Interest. The Dred Scott decision was promulgated in the flush of tho Democratic victory. The doctrine of popular sovereignty had served its chief purpose, and it wns now to be assigned a subordinate position. The Dred Scott decision gave it a southern faco as well as a northern face, and its mission wns to look both ways at once. Popular Sovereignty, witli (ho rope of tho Federal Supremo Courts' con- sfilutiotial interpretation around its neck, for the north, and Dred Scott flourishing the slave driver's whip over the free torritories, for tlio South! That is the hybid national Democracy. Hut the Dred Scott decision did not slop with tlio absorption of tho free territories; it aimed a fatul blow at the sovereignty of the freo Slates. It gave the authority of the highest judicial tribunal of the nation to the sanction of tho fugitive slave act, by reaffirming its constitutionality. Under that act, citizens of Ohio have been convicted, sentenced and imprisoned. Appealing to the Supreme Court of the Stato for relief, the Court could only act in accordance with its construction of the laws, and guided by thai construction, it felt itBolf precluded from granting the release. The Supremo Court of the State, having decided that ihe shield of State sovereignty ennnot bo interposed by a State Court betweon the elocution of the act, and tht vie-1 tints of tho act, there la nn amiy fcy-jrtirtu Well may the people of Ohio pause at this solemn juncture, and ask, where shall a remedy bo found, since it docs not exist in the Judiciary of tho nation or the Slate? Wo answer that it is to bo found in the Legislative depsrtment of ttie government. The courts can only eipouud nnd adjudge the federal laws Congress makes them, aud the people make Congress. Let the people of Ohio demand the repeal of the Fugitive Slave act, and the substitution of such legislation as shall be confined to the simple requirement of the Constitution of the United States. In such a demand, recognizing . y C11110 1 it ut iuii at obligation under the Mere' ' compact, and zenliuslv rigutsui ihe sovereign ,nd of their free citizens, they would be seconded by the people of all ttie free States, and lher uniled voice would compel obedience on tlio pnrt of tho law making power, which has been used by Slavery to crush out Freedom even upon free soil. The Fugitive Blnve Art In the Ohio Legla-lniui'c.Tlio recent judicial proceedings in Ohio, in the Wellington rescue cases, can have no other effect lhan lo awaken anew in Iho patriotic breasts of the people of Ohio, their long smothered indignation against thnt iniquitous perveition of federal legislation, known as the Fugitive Slave Act. That tho moral sense nnd deliberate judgment of Ihe people have been decidedly and unequivocally Against that enactment, is strikingly illustrated by tho resolutions introduced into the Ohio Legislature at different periods, and advocated and sustained by men of all political parties. Wo propose a brief review of (liese expressions of popular opinion, deliberately uttered on sundry occasions by the representatives of tho people During the pondency of tho Compromise bill, in tho session of 1S4U-C0, which, among other things, coupled tho Fugitive Slave Act with the admission of California, Mr, Dlake offered the following resolution, (we give the italkt&a printed in tho Senate Journal:) Reolted, That the sentiment of the freemen of Ohio is, "A'o more Shut Statu no mort Slave Ttrritnry; that Congress hat tlio power, and should apply tho Ordinanoeof Congress of 17M", so far as it relates to slavery, to all tho terri-ries of iho United States, that Congress has the power, and should immediately exercise it, and abolish slavery and ttieslavo trndoin tho District of Columbia, the const-wise and inter-stnieslavo trade; that tho government of (ho United States should cense to liyislate or, und tt promote ilavertf, hut InjitUiit or, rnoi' promote Iherti; nnd upjn this subject thoro should be no compromise. We shall briefly refer to tho voto upon Ihoso propositions, which were Introduced in connection with tho subject of the fugitive slave law, for iho ptirposo of showing tho popular sentiment of Ohio ten yean ago. The question being on tho adoption of this resolution, Mr. Whitman, now tho Democratic candidate for Supremo Judge, demanded a diyi-1 lion of the question, and Ihe vote being taken mi tho first proposition, lo wit, that tho scnt!-mrnl of the freemen of Ohio is, ''No moro ilnvo Stales no more slave torrilory" wo find among the names recorded in favor of that proposition, Ihoso of such Democratic leaders as Payne, the last Democratic candidnto for Governor, Judge Whitman, together with Dimnock, and othor lesser lights of that parly, who voted with tho Whigs. Only three Senators out of twenty-eight present voted in tho negative two Democrats and ouo Whig Messrt. Dyers, Howard and Johnson, The second proposition, urging Congressional restriction of Slavery from the territories, was also adopted by a vole of 21 to 7; and thus, in all tho votes taken upon the amendment nnd tho original resolutions, Senators of bolh tho Democratic aud Whig parties united in placing Ohio upon tho record against tho policy of yielding to Slavery lis demands for foothold upon freo territory, and against the enactment of tho Fugitive Slave Inw. This same spirit of determined hostility to tho fugitive slave law mnnifeslod Itself in Iho Legislature of Iho succeeding your IHo"-ol. On Wcdaeeday, December U, IS'iO, Mr. (now Judge) Sutlift', introduced into the Senate, tho following resolutions: Resolved, That the Constitution of tho United States establishes a General Government of limited powers, expressly reserving all powers, not thereby designated, to the States and to tho people. Retolvtd, That among tho powers delegated to tho Oeneral Government, by the Constitution, that of legislating upon the subject of Fugitive from service is not to be found; while thMof depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without duo process of law, it express sy denied, Retolved, That in the judgment of this General Assembly, the act of Congress in relatim to Fugitives from service, approved Sopt. ifih l&jll, is unconstitutional; not merely for want of power in Congress" to legislnto upon the subjeo but because the provisions of Ihe act are, in soverul important particulars, repugnant to tho express provisions of tho Constitution. Resolved, That it it tho duty of Ihe several courts of this Slate, to allow tho writ of habeas corpus to all persona applying for the tame in conformity with the lawn of this Stato; and to conform in all respeclt in subsequent proceedings to the provisions of the same. Retolved, That while the Constitution of tho United States confers on Congress no power to interfere with tho internal legislation of the several StatoB, and consequently no power to act within Stnte limits, on the subject of slnvery; it does require that Congress, whenever beyond the limit i of any State it hat exclusive legislative power, shall provide efficient securities for the personal liberty of every person unconvicted of crime. Resolved, That it it the duty of Congress to repeal all acts by which any person is deprived of liberty, without due process of law; and especially all acts by which any person is held in slavery, in any place subject to exclusive national jurisdiction. Theso resolutions wore laid upon tho table und ordered to bo printed In the aftornoon of (ho same day, Ihey were taken up and two additional resolutions added, declaring the fugittvo law "further objectionable, because of itt Inhumanity its disregard of the natural and inalienable rights of man, and its hostility to tho spirit of the age of progress in which we live," and instructing our Congress mon to use "their best endeavors for its immediate repeal.' On Friday, January 10, 1H'I, they were taken up nnd committed lo tho whole Sen a to, and it ado the order of (he duy for the following Tuesday, when they wcro discussed; on Thursday they woro again discussed. On the --d of March, Mr. Gciger, of Franklin county, offered an amendment, striking out the original resolutions, nnd inserting resolutions In thoir plnce, which while Ihey declared that "the Union waB paramount to every olher political consideration," denounced the fugitivo slave act, in detail, showing its injustice and manifest hardship, and advocated an amendment of it, so as to secure fugitives trial by jury. Theso amendatory resolutions wore not strong enough to suit Henry U. Payne, and other good Democrats, and thoy voted against them, the Senate refusing to ttriko out by 20 to 7, and resolutions woro finally adopted, declaring that the fugitive slave law "ought never to receive the voluntary cooperation of the people, and, therefore, to bo immediately repealed." These resolutions ware passed by tho aid of tho votel of Payne and the other good Democrats aforesaid.Again, in the Senate of Ohio, resolutions were ofTored, denouncing the fugitive tlavt law. On Tuesday, April 8, 18-30, Mr. Canfield presented the following: . ----" uhoreas, iu the judgment of this General Assembly the act of Congress, usually called the fugitive lave act, approved September 1M, lcoU, tt inconsistent with and unwarranted by the Constitution of the United States, and is repugnant to tho plainest prii cipies oi justice and humanity; therefore, Hesolved hy the G'-nrral A J the of Ohio: That our Representatives in Congrent bo requested, and our Senators instructed to procure the repeal of aaid aot at the earliest practicable moment. This resolution was adopted by a vote of 24 tc.O, and tho next day il passed the House by a divided vote of G5 yeas to 31 nays. In IHoT, the Senate adopted the following rusoitic i, among olhers, relating to the Dred -ition : tt the General Assembly, in behalf of the peoplo of Ohio, hereby solemnly protest against theso doctrines, as destructive of personal liberty, of States Rights, of Constitutional obligations, and of the Union; nnd to protesting, further declares its nnnlterable convictions that io the Declaration of Independence, the fathers of the Republic intended to assert the indestructible and equal rights of all men, without any exception or reservation whatever, to life, liberty nnd (he pursuit of happineBt, and in the Constitution by (he comprehensive guaranty that no person shnll be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, designed to secure these rights against all invasion by the Federal Government, and to make the establishment of slavery outside of the slave Statct a constitutional impossibility." Adopted or a voto of 17 to 4. This resolution was subsequently, adopted hy the IIouso, yeas 5i, nays 26. Such ft the persistent, earnest and determined protest of Ohio, as uttered through resolution! of her General Assembly, against Iho , Fugitive Slave Act. A striking and significant peculiarity in the record wo have presented, it the fact that in tho earlier periods of our roviow, the Sonators and Representatives of both parties-first of tho old Whig and Democratic, and then of tht Republican and Democratic parties recorded their votot tide hy side against the iniquity. But as the bo called Democracy gradually drifted away from itt professed lovoof freedom, the namca of the Democratic pro test ants became fewor and fewer, and at (hit day titch men at Payne and Whitman, whtj then were foremost in declaring their opposition to the fugitive slave law, are now equally conspicuous in the ranks of the party whose only end and million Is to subjugate freedom, and build up tho permanent supremacy of slavery in our government.Tho following are the assessor's return I of personal property for Hamilton and Prairie townships: HAMILTOX TOWMSIIIP.' K. Vslns. i tut fci,i2 1,015 -it,b Arttrla. - CnrrlHftra "1i lit 1 ft llminMioM (J.-xl l'erUlQiug lo Mnn tinnrtlw lUnultu'iuriafr... Mnn-v , tJrvditi, Hook Account!, lc r,n77 i:,2i".i 2,17 s HTS W,7t ,S7 1V73 27.M1 llrnA Otlll MiiIm Sheup t'nnlns'f VinU'liM Il0lllllM roMi rvrUlnlnn 1 ni'n'hMiills'.... I'lTtninlnKto man nurturing Meni t'riNlllH, book icciainu, Jtv Total Judge Wolkcrbrings the melancholy newt of tho death of lion. Cyrut Spink of W'ooslor, member of Congress elect, from the XIV District. Mr. Spink wns itricken down from perfect health by an appolcclio fit, and died Monday night. He was most favorably known as a lawyer, and an active, cnergetlo man, esteemed by all who knew him, and his death will be a lots to iho wholo country. The Board of Puhlio Works are engaged in examining tho National Road, prior to taking it off the hands of the lessees, according to the law paiscd last winter. Tout wu,iw ra 4irir Towxsnir. .. ft7l Sl.'Uft LOU U.BiM Ms. 1.I1S 1,741 m 4,tvi a: 7.-.T7 7 i,my O..U1 I.7S0 1,130 H.O-W R.2HA ited j1' jj prin' r L1