The New York Herald Newspaper, July 13, 1857, Page 2

2 NATIONAL vs. STATE RIGHTS. The Collision of the United States Officers and the Authorities of Ohio, The Clarke County Rescue Case. JUDGE LEAVITT’S DECISION. Whe United States Marshals Taken From the Custody of the Sheriff of Clarke County and Discharged, [From the Cincinnati Gazette, July 10.) EXPARTE SI} FORD, MARSHAL 'ST--HABEAS CORPUS. There is no cause to regret whic! ‘bas been extended to counsel, in the p tation and discussion of this case, or the time which, for Teasons not necessary to be stated, has elapsed since the hearing commenced. In some aspects the ques- tions ansing are important, and require great deli- beration in their decision. Every case conflict between the nadonal and State autnorities casts upon the Judge or court called to pass upon it a most responsible duty. And such cases are the more ewbarrassing and difficult, when the jurisdic- tion of Judge or court is challenged, and a decision of that question becomes necessary. It has been my aim to consider with calmness the case before me, and to render such conclusions as my judgment will approve. lt I have sncceeded in this the criticisms of those differing from me in my views qiil, I trast, have vo disturbing influence. On the 29th ot May last Lewis H. Sifford, the Marehal of the United States for the Southern dis- trict of Ohio, presented his petition, duly sworn to, for a writ of habeas corpus, alle; , Among other things, that Benjamin P. Churchill and nine others, being Deputy and Assistant Marshals, were unlaw- fully imprisoned in the jail of Clarke county by pro- ceas issued by a Justice of the Peace of anid county, for acts done, or omitted to be done by them, as such deputies and assistants, in the proper discharge of their duties under a law, and by the authority of the United States. A writ of habeas corous was issued, according to the prayer of the petition, di- rected to John £. Layton, Sheriff of said Clarke county. requiring him to have the said Churchill and others forthwith before this court. with the cause of their caption and detention. The Sheriff ‘has promptly obeyed the writ, and has made cial return, stating the ciscumstances under the deputies and assistants were delivered into custocy. The important questions arising in the ase are presented ou a motion for the discnarge of these persons. The facts necessary to be noticed, preliminary to the consideration of the points presented, are, that on the 23d of May last separate warrants were issued by Edward k. Newhall, a Commissioner of the Cir- cuit Court of the United States, for the arrest of Hiram Guthridge and three other persons, residents of Champaign? county, on charges of having aided and abetted a fugitive slave in his escape, and having resisted and obstructed the officers of tne United States in the arrest of such fugitive. The persons named in the warrants were arrested by tne Deputy Marsbais ani assistants; and when conr-y ing them to Cincinnati, where the warrants were re- turnable, an attempt was made by the Sheriff of Clarke couaty to take said prisoners from the cus- tody of the officers, by a habeas corpus issued by the Probste Jadge of Champaigne county. Toe Sheriff, in his return to the nabeas corpas issued to hin from this Court, alleges, that the writ issaed by the Propate Judge was put into his hands for execu- tion by the Sheriff of Cham; ‘2 county, and that, in company with one Compton as an assist- ant, be attem, to verve it, by taking possession of the four prisoners in the cage of the Deput; Marshais aud their assistants, and that in this a’ tempt be was violently resisted and assaulted and failed to execute the writ according to its command. It appears that on a complaint made before one Huston, a Justice of the Peace of Clarke county, ‘that the deputies and their assistants had unlaw- fully assaulted and beat the said Sheriff, they were qabeoqaenity colnet by a large armed torce and taken before the said Justice, and by him committed to the jeil of Clarke county; and while so in custody a new complaint was EY them for an as- sault on the Sheriff with intent to kill, and for shoot- ing at said Compton with intent to kill, &c., before one Christie, a Justice of the Peace for said county, a7 they were again arrested and committed it may be noticed here, that after the seizure of the Deputy Marshals by the armed force, a8 above stated, and the consequeut rescue of the terran from their possession, they were taken by the Sheriff of Green county before the Probate Judge of Cham- peign, by virtue of the habeas isgued by him, ‘were summarily discharged by his order, and have since been at large. In considering the questions before me, I shall not attempt to review the extended and abie arguments of the counsels, or notice ali the points raised in the It has been insisted stren and they were then in custody, om process after wards issved. I do not proj point further than to remark, that from the return of the Sheriff of Clarke county, it would seem at feast doubtful whether at the time of the service of the habeas corpus the deputies were in cus ody un- der the first or the second warrant. There seems to have been @ continuous custody under these warrants; and it would be somewhat technical in suoh a case as this to base an order for remanding the deputies on the ground stated. It is also urged—and this ig the main point of the argument of the counsel resisting the discharge of the persons in custody—that as it appears from the retarn to the habeas corpus, that tuey are in costo dy under pr cess issued by & Justice of the Peace, regular and lawful on its face, thisscoart has no ja risdiction to go bebind that process,” aud iaquire tor what cause and under what circumstances it is- sued. It is admitted that, in reference to the writ of habeas corpus issued by the courts or judges of the United States, under the judiciary act of 1789, the position assumed is undoubtedly correct. The re- turn ef the officer showing @ deteation under pro. cess, legal and valid on tts face, wou'd be conclusive, and preclude the court or judge from further iaqui- ry. But the haveas corpus now in question was is- raed ander the 7th section of the astof the 2d of Mareh. 1533, which provides “taat either of the jns- tices of the Supreme Court, or a judge of any Dis- trict Court, in addition to tne authority already con- ferred by law, shall have power to grant writs of habeas corpus in all cases of a or prisoners in jail or confinement, wheu he or they shall be com- mitted or conficed on or by any authority of law for any act done, or omitted to be done, in parsuance of a law of the United states, or any order, process, or decree of any judge or court thereof—anything in any act of Congress to the contrary notwith- stancing.” " The words of this provision are so explicit and intelligible that there would seem to be no room for doubt as to their meaning. They do con- fer, and were intended to coafer, on a federal judge, the power to issue the writ of habeas cor- pas, whenever there is an imprisonment, “ by acy authority of law, for any act done or omitted, under a law of the United States.” Now the poiat to be inquired into and determined by the J issuing the babeas corpus ie, whether the act for which the party is imprisoned has been done in the discharge of official duty, under the authority contemplated by the provision referred to. But if the return to the writ, showing an imprisonment under State process, shuts out all farther inquiry, the act of Congress is a dead letter, and its purposs — dete rie aimed occasion 0! passage act ‘ongress of 1833 bas been referred to; and, it is contended in argument, that it must be limited in its operation to a scate of things similar to that then existing; and was intended only to guard against nullification when it appeared in the form of resistance by State autho- rity to the revenue laws’ of the United States, It wax doubuess such threa‘ened resistance that called the law into being. Bat it has been permitted to re- main on the statute book, in fall force, for upwards ‘of twenty-five years. This has not been the resnit of sccwent or inadvertence. It was obvious to the members of Congress, and the statesmen, who have, since the enactment of the law, pariici- pated in the affairs of the country, that it was a wise provision, and necessary to meet any subsequent case of improper interference by a State with the legislation of Congress, in matters pertaining to the national goverement, and within the range of its exclusive powers. There a judicial authority for the exercise ‘cof the power in question by Jadge of the United States, under the act of 1553. Inthe case, ex parte, Robinson, 6 Mclean, 365, known as the Rosetta case, the fasts stated are, that a female slave, traveling in company with her master, in the State of Ohio, was taken by a writ of habeas corpus before a Probate Judge, at Columbus, and adjudged by him to be free. Bhe was afterwards arrested by the Marshal ns a fugitive, upon a warrant issued bya Commis- sioner; and oj habeas corpus \ssoed by Judge ‘Parker of the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county, fugitive was discharged from the ‘custody of the Marshal. She was again arrested upon ‘nother warrant issued by the same Commissioner, and, while in custody, and before the examination by the Commissioner, Judge Parker € adjudged the ‘arehal guilty of @ contempt for ing the female, and he was committed to jail under that judgment. Judge McLean, on the petition of the Marchal, insued a writ of habeas rable berore him; aod afver full NEW YORK HERALD, MONDAY, JULY 13, 1857. ischarged did not hesitate der the statute of of the facts relating Marshal, and discharged id that he was imprisoned for an to be done in obedience to law. be di from prisonment. The learned Judge un conclusive; and the Judge asserted the right of going behind the judgment aud examining the whole proceeding. ‘Tbe result was that the { npri- sonment ef the was 1 to be illegal, and for an act omitted, pursuant to a law of the United States. In his opinion, the Judge says,“ a sense of duty compels me to or the proceed- ings of the honorable Judge (Parker) were not only without authority of law, but against law, and that the proceedings are void, and I am bound to treat them as a nullity.” Another case cited in argument, ex parte Jen- kins, 2 Wallace, Jr., 621, asserts the power of a fede- ral Judge to issue the writ of habeas corpus in all cases within the language of the act of 1833, and to @ischarge, under all circumstances, where the im- Greeny rend for an act done by authority of the nited States. The learned Judge Grier, of the Supreme Court of the United States. in his opinion onthat case, ane “ the authority conferred on the Judges of the United States by this act of Congress, gives them all the powers which any other court or gives them none atall. If under such a writ they may not discharge their officer when imprisoned by any authority for an act done in pursuance of a law of the United States, it would be impossible to discover for what useful purpose the act was Is the prisoner to be brough: before them only that they may acknowledge their utter impotence to poate hia?” Tbe case here referred to is very similar in several of its aspects to the one before this Court. In that case several deputy marshals were resisted ir their attempts to arrest a fugitive. A com- plaint was made beforea Justice of the Peace, charging the deputies with an assault and battery on the fugitive; a warrant was issued-by the Jastice, aud the deputies were lodged in jatl. They applied for a writ of babeas corpus, and although it appear- ed on the hearing they had been committed on pro- cess, legal and right on its face, Judge (rier received evidence that the deputies were imprisoned for an act done in the discharge of their duty, and without breed delivered them from the custody of the jailor. These cases establish beyond doubt that a federal Judge, or court, upon the return of a habeas corpus issued pursuant to the act of 1833, setting up an im- prisonment under State process, regular on its face, may receive evidence as to the facts connected with suco imprisonment; and, if it appears to have been for an act done or omitted in the performance of official daty, to order the discharge of the party. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of this construction. It does not imply any invasion of the sovereignty of the State whose process is thus treat- ed. Nor is it based on any assumption or claim that a federal Judge or court has any jurisdiction to re- vise or set aside the judgments of the courts or ma- gistrates of a State. It is merely the exercise of power to inquire into. the cause of imprisonment ; and if such cause is within the contemplation of the act to grant an order for the discharge of the im- prisoned party. Neither does it import, as sug- gestcd in the argument, that a federal Judge or Court can protect on officer of the {United States from punishment for a crime committed against the laws of the State under pretence that he was doiag his duty. if the jurisdiction, to the extent indicated, does not exist, it is very clear the sovereignty of the United States is liable every day to be contemned and trampled upon. Upon any other view, it is entirely in the power of any one corrupt enongh to make a false oath against an officer of the United Siates, having charge of offentiers + ita laws, to procure their release, and most effectually to ob- struct and nullify the legislasion of the Uaioa for the hment of crime. It is easy to conceive, how not only the hn gon Slave law, but the laws for the protection of Post office department, and laws punishing the making of sparious coins of the United States, may be defeated in their corn rations if the jurisdiction referred to does not It is now proper to inquire whether, from the tacts before the it sufficiently apvears these Deputy Marshals were in the righttul and proper discharge ot their duties, when the act charged upon them as a crime against the State of Ohio was committed. I shall endeavor to do this as briefly as possible. In the first place it may be remarked, that these deputies were in the possesion of lawful process for the arrest of the parties charged with a viola- tion of the Jaws of United States. and it may be remarked that it is not optional with them process. They were tion of an oath, beady AGT et \d prom| ey worve all a hich shout an gerve TOCeSS WI) come nea thelr hands for ce, were subject to punishment for not doing so. There is no ques tion, from the evidence. that the warranis referred possession of their prisoners, and such killing clearly would not be a crime against the State of Ohio But it is insisted that the Sheriff of Clarke county of a valid and legal writ of habeas corpus, which he was attém; ing in good faith to serve, and that he was violently and illegally resist- ed by the Deputy Marshals in such attempt. On the other hand, it is urged that the habeas corpns placed in the hands of Sheriff Layton was merely colorabie, issued in frand of the law, and was a part ef a con- spiracy, by which to effect the rescue of the prison- ers. This writ has been the subject of much com- ment by counsel, and authorities have been cited to show that it was a nullity, and that the Sueri{f was under no obligation to serve it. As & consequence it is iusisted the Deputy Marshals were not bound to respect it, and could incur no liability for resist- ing its execution. I cannot take the time necessary to discuss or de- cide all the points made in the argument, in refer- ence to this writ. The Senmeasion of the proceedings by the Jadge of Probate of Champaign county, who issued the writ and to whom it was returaed, and by whose order the prisoners were discharged, is before me. The writ was obtained upon the ap piication of one F. W. Greenhough, who, against the truth of the case, took upon bimself the res gonsivil- ity of comme Oe the prisoners were detained in custody by Charchill without legal authority. It issued under the Ohio act of 1855, and is directed, not to the person having the prisoners in charge, but to any and all ot the Sheriffs of the State of Ohio, without any showing, “ by affidavit or othec- wise,” that the officer or person having the prison- ers in custody wil refuse or noglect to obey the writ. This obvious dissegdrd of the ions of the statute I suppose invalidates the writ, and a Sheriff would have incurred no liability by refasing to serve it. But Ido not propose to discass this question, nor to comment on the strange and anoma- lous provisions of the statute referred to. It witl suf- fice to say, that while it providgs for a writ, designa- ted asa writ of habeas corpus, the writ has really none of the qualities or characteristics of that great writ of right. Whatever may have been the design of the statute, it seems admirably suited to effect the rescue of any prisoner in the custody of an officer of the United States. All that is needed for this purpose is an affidavit that such prisoner is ille- gally detained in custody, and by aid of this statute it would be practicable, upon the oath of aa unscrupulous affiant, to effect the discharge of a prisoner in the penitentiary, under sentence of any court of the United states. But it is farther oted to the writ issued by the Probate Judge, that he bad no jurisdiction, and that the writ is fore a nullity. A great number of cases have been referred to in the argument, in sup- of re Without a critical notice of cases, it may be sufficient to remark, that the doctrine seems now to be settled, that a State Judge has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of hadeas corpus for a prisoner in custody of an officer of the United States, if the fact of such custody is known to him before issuing the writ. And it is well set tled, that if upon the retarn of the writ, it ap- ra the is in custody under the authori- y of the United States, the jurisdiction of the State judge is at an end, and all farther oged- ings by him are void. In the case of Sims, re- wrted in 7th Oushing’s Rep. 285, the Sapreme Sourt of Massachusetta deciaed, thatio all cases, “before a writ of habeas corpus is granted, su‘ficient probable canse must be shown; but when it appears upon the party's own showing that there is no suffi- cient ground prima facie for his discharge, the Court will not issue,the writ;” and again the Court say: “It is not granted as a matter of course, and the Court will not grant the writ of habeas corpus, when they see, that in the result, they mast remand the party.” In the case of Norris vs Newton and others, 6 McLean 2, Judge McLean says, “I have no hevitation in saying that the ja sicial officers of a State under its own laws, in a case where an unlaw- fal imprisonment is shown by one or more affidavits, may issue a writ of habeas corpus, and inquire into the cause of detention.” The learned jadge,it will be noticed, has reference to an imprisonment ander the authority of the United States, and decides as the condition on which @ State Judge may iasne a writ of habens corpus, that it shali be first shown, by: affidavits or otherwise, that such imprisonment unlawful. And he holds, that when it is known to the Judge, that toejimprisonment is under a law of the United States, his jurisdiction ceases, and ali farther proceedings in the case will be coram nore ee. Tt does not a) , from the transcript of the ceedings before the Probate J of Ohampuign county, that the prisoners were in custody tuadee process of the United states; but it is hardly sappo- gable that the fact was not known totnat Judge. But as this is not shown ia the transeript it cannot be assumed asa fact. 4 strong light is, however, cast upon this traasaction by the proof before the Court that vhen the prisoners were prought before Probate Juége, ana when it was his duty to inquire into avd ascertain the precise ground on which they were held in custody by the Depaty Marsaals, he ordered them to be summarily discharged. The rea- son of this order, as appears from tne transcr pt, wes, that no one appeared to show by what authori- ti the prisoners were arrested and held ia custody. ‘be truth was—whether known to the Probate Judge does not appear—that the Deputy Marshal named in the proceedings, and who was so solemaly called and de:aulted tor his non-appearance, was at the time a close prisoner in the Pi ‘of the adjoining county of Claske. It is alao insisted, in argument, that if the Depu- ties bad the lawful custody of these prisoners, and we 0 jeatited in reeisting-enp atiamapt-se take them by a State officer, that such resistance was excessive, aud that, by such excess, they have forfeited the protection intended by the Ast of 1833, and are amenable to the law of Ohio. As before noticed, the only question with which I am now to deal ie whether the act charged as criminal against the Deputies was done in the proper discharge of their official auties. This ing necessarily leads toa notice of some of the facts before the Court in con- nection with the attempted rescue of the prisoners. Mauy of the statements in the affidavits have no relerence to this transaction, aud need not be 5 cially noticed. It 1s the alleged violence of the puties in resisting the Sheriff that forms the basis of the complaint agatost them before the Justice of the Pesce of Clarke couaty. If in this they have done no more than their official duty justified them in doing, they ure within the provisions of the act of On gress. oy stating my views on this point of the case I shall not attempt a critical examination of the state- ments of the witnesses on either side. Ia some im- portant particulars there are discrepancies and con- tradictions in the facts set forth in tae numerous afficavits which have been read. I shall make no effort to reconcile these; nor is 1t necessary that I should indi¢ate an opinion as to the credit due to the conflicting statements. ‘There ure some considerations which sre conclu- sive of the question indicated. Ia his oral evidence, if not in his affidavit, Sheff Layton admits he was notified when the writ of habeas corpus was placed in his hands that the persons having tne custody of the prisoners were Deputy Marsbals, aud held the prisoners under the authority of the United States. Itis very clear upon the authorities re referred to, that with a knowledge of the fac%, even if the writ were valid, the power of the Sheriff was at an end, and he was wrong in attempting the service. ‘as an officer, sworn to support the coastitution of the Unitea States, he was under no obligation t> serve it, and would have incurred no liability in re- fusing todo so. His return of the fact, that the pri- soners in custody were held by the paramount authority of the United States, would have been a complete justification for not serving the writ. He was fully aware that the writ could not be served without Lope g the authorities of the United States and the State of Ohio tato direct collision, and tat the issue to be settled was purely one of pnysical power. If unnecessarily, and against tae obliga- tions of official duty, be placed himself in a position of p-ril, he may be supposed to have done so with a full knowledge of what the consequences might be, and a determination to meet them at all hazarda. To understand the natare of this conflict, itshould be remembered that the Deputy Marsbals, by their official oaths, were under a positive and paramount obligation to retain their prisoners, and to oppose all attempts to rescue them. The prisoners were law- fully in their custody, and they would nave been de- relict in duty to have parted with that custody, un- less com; to do so by an overpowering physical torce. The Sheriff had a writ which commanded him to take the prisoners from the custody of these officers of the United States. It was not the usual —_ well wr agro peer Rerdoral summooi party baving ged unla custony ol the persons named in the writ, to have them gg tention, but a writ requirin: forcibly, if necessary, from and lawful custody. This serving the writ; and the question, whether it could be eerved, was simply a question of power. So the Sheriff understood it, and hence he and his assis- tants deliberately ed themselves as a prepara- tion for the conflic:, which they foresaw was inevi- table. In serving the writ their first object was to do what the writ required; namely, to take the priso- ners trom the custody of the Deputy Marshals. Counting, probably, on the active co.operation of the prigoners, they made this attempt. It is alto- gether immaterial whether the Sheriff, on comii up with the United States officers, announced official character, or that he had a writ requirin) him to take the prisoners. If such announce: were made (which is doubtful from the weight of the testimony). it was an idle form, which the De- =— were not bound to respect, and can ve no influence in the decision of this question. Taney would have been faithless to their duty if thoy surrendered —— their prisoners upon such a ‘ notice. | It is a , from facts not in , that | the Sheriff and his assistant well understood how the | writ was to be served. hey were apprized that a | mere statement that they were officers of the State ot Obio, aud had a writ of habeas corpus for the | prisoners, would come altogether short of the exi- | gency of the writ. They knew that nothing but the Sinai capture of the prisoners and their corporeal | eustody would answer its demands. Hence, the first | movement was the seizing, vy the assistant of the | Sheriff, of the bridle of the horse in the foremost carriage. He was resisted in this attempt, and im- mediately aimed his revolver at the Depaty, and if | he did not actually fire, it is beyond all question he | made the attempt. Wnhether he fired or only made | the attempt the officer whose life was thus put at | hazard had an undouoved right. in self-defence, to disabie bis assailant, and was fully jastided in firing at him with this view. It may’ be noticed here, as throwing some light on the intention ot the Sheriff and his assistant, that the Sheriff states as his im- pression that bis assistant, as be drove past the rear carriages pointed his pistol trom the carriage in which be rode, thus giving a very ge indica- tion of what might be expected if the prisoners were not peaceably surrendered. Hut it is said the Sheriff was most wantonly In- jured in this aflray. In bis oral testimony he states that after jeaviag his buggy he approached the car riage in waich Churehil! rode, with pistol in hand, prepared to fire, and intending to fire at Churchill. ‘This fact is clearly proved by many other witaesses in toeir affidavits. And it also o—— beyond doubt that it was when the was thas 4 | proaching Churchill tha: the latter seized hum, wit! | the sole view of disarming him, and thus saving his | | own or the life of another person. It is greatly to be regretted that the Sheriff was severely injured ia this recvunter; bat it any fact is established in this case, it is that these injuries resulted trom the se- vere conflict in the attempt to disarm him. In sach contest the degree of force which may be used cannot be graduatea with absolute precision. + If the writ put into the hands of the Sheriff had been issued in good faith, aud were the well known writ of habeas corpus, requiring the depaty mar- shals to produce the bodies of the prisoners for the purpose of enquiring into the cause of their detention, it would have been the duty of those | officers to take the persons before the Judge. If not as a matter of legal obligation, the courtesy due to the authorities of another jurisdiction would have required this. In doing this they would have retained the ion of the prisoners, as no State Juage, it may be presumed, would have authorized their discharge when i: was made known to nim that they were held ander valid United States au- thority. "But, as before noticea, the writ under the extraordinary Ohio law of 1456, requiring the oiticer to whom it is directed to take of pony Fon § ter by whom or by what authority they jetained, is a wholly different thing. This act seems to have been inconsiderately passe 1, and in its practical exe- cution must lead to irequent conflicts between the national and State authoricies. It might, with great propriety be designated a# an act to prevent the execution of the laws of tae United States within the State of Ohio. Tt seems clear that the deputy marshals were right, under the circumstances of this case, in resisting the atvempt to rescue the prisoners trom their casvody. Judge Neison, one of ine Justices of the Supreme Courtof the United States, has stated the law on this point with _ force and accuracy. While he cou cedes that t may be cases in which a State Jadge will be justified in granting a habeas corpus for a prisoner in confinement nnder United States pro- ceas, he asserts that if the process is legal, the offlver having the person in ctarge will not justified in surrendering that custody under any circumstances, The learned Judge says:—“In sach case, that is where the prisoner isin fact held under process is- sued by a federal tribanal under the constitution, or a law of the United States, or a treaty, it is the duty of an officer not to give him up or to allow him to op from his bands at any stage of ths proceedings. je should stand apon his authority; and if resisted, maintain it with all the power conferred on hin for that pur; "CL Blatenford’s Rep. 635.) Even in cases where there is concurrent jurisdiction in the ral pee anda State, it Is well settled by the adjudications of the federal and State courte, that the tribonal to which the jarisdiction first attaches shall retain it. In the case ex parte Jenkins, before cited, Jadge Grier says:—“Where a and property are liable to seizare and arrest the process of both, that which first attached should have the preference. Any attempt of either take them from the legal cnstody of the officers would be an unjustifiable exercise of consequen- | power exercised is exclusive in the United States? |” It cannot be necessary tv notice further the points arising in the case, or the numerous facta set forth in the affidavits. The conclusions indicated seem to be fully sustained by the law and the facts. | There is, however, a general view of the case that leaves no doubt as to the real character of the traus- action involved. It cannot be controverted that there was a settled purpore, in at least a portion of | the community in whica these occurrences took place, to prevent, either by direct or indirect means, the execution of alaw of the United States. Four persons bad been arrested, under legal process, for an aleged violation of one of the provisions of the fugitive slave law. There is known to exist, in the counties to which reference has been made, & de- cided feeling of ngstility to that act; aud the opinion is entertamea—it may be honestly by many—that the law bas no validity, and is not entitled to respect or ovedience. Those entertait these extreme views seem to suppose bbe 9 in any attempt to tion, but that such soenags is in itself merito- rious. With such views, it is not strange that men should be prepared for extreme and indefensible measures to render the law inoperative. It does not admit of a doubt that practical nulification was the purpose of those who opposed the officers of the United States in the execution of their duties on the occasion referred to. Great excitement prevailed, and crowds followed the officers in charge of the prisoners. From their excited bearing, there were easons for the apprebension that an Samegened ’ 7 ata rescue would be made. It and forcible attemp' does not change the real character of the views and purposes of these persons that they deemed it most expedient to effect their object by » resort to the 1orms ot law. Much has been said by counsel on the importance of the questions involved in this case. The daager of penta, ry sovereignty of the State of Ohio has been exhibited in most eloquent and forcible terms, and the Court has been admonished of che fearfal yesu’ta of the exercise of jurisdiction in this case. It in readily conceded that a federal Judge or court sbon)d tread with cautious steps upoa tne line divid- ia yr National and State sovereignty. ut it should be remembered that sovereignty per- tains to the government of the United States as well as to that of the States. The general governmen’, within ita constitutional limits, is supreme, and its action is paramount to any opposing action on the part of the States. Every right thinking and right bearted American citizen will feel and admit the ob- ligation resting on him to sustain the just powers of the Union, as well as of the State in which he re- sides. A proper fealty to both is due from and de- manded of every citizen, and these obligations are revent its execu- just recognition of each depends the existence and perpetui‘y of our government. ow. practical queation in this case is whether a law of the Upited States can be evaded and set at naugbt, either by direct and violent opposition, which is rebellion, or by the specious pretences of law. And ae cues is in no degree affected b: the character of the law sought to be nuliified. know well there is a deep seated hostility to the Fugitive Slave act of 1850 throughout most of vbe free States. Iam also aware that there is among the people of Ohio an almost unanimous sentiment in opposition to slavery, and that there are few, if any, of her citizens, who desire its in- troduction into the State. But thebe considerations do not excuse or cn f national laws, sanctioned by tne constitation ot the United States, growing out of the existence of that institution, in other portions of the Union. There may be very ~s and well founded objections to the law refe to, but while it i a law it must be respected and obcyed as such. power called forth in its enactment is one which belongs exclusively to the government of the Union, and with which the States have no right to interfere. It ehould be remembered, too, that it is an emana- tion of the will of the nation, expressed through the representatives of the States and the according to the forms of the constitution. serie § the same power that passed it, is the only method by which it ean cease to have the force of law. Itis unquestionably true that every citizen has a sea and may pad and express, without stint indrance, his opinions upon ares or measure of public policys ‘but —— not fc evade or lew, any school or section depths of public opinions, whatever may be the agi- tions on itf surface, there is an overmastering powet which, if the emergency shall arise, will come forth as a strong man armed in defence of the common bond of national brotherhood and national existence. ‘The deputy marshals are discharged. visiting Euro a oe out as a Commissioner of companies, which recent, met in convention at Bristol, Lennessee. His object, and theirs, is to produce, if possibie, the establish: ment rt line of rage og ge ga a eo or, , some port Jugland. object is bard ae transcendant magnitude to Virgi- nia and her railroads, and is not without much interest for us. Should a line of steam- ers be established at Norfolk, and offer as strong in- ducements as those of New York for the shipment of Western produce, it may become more advanta- geous, especially in winter, to ship through a South- ern port. It is obvious that Nortolk may hereafter offer 2 very advantageous alternate port for the ship- ment of produce, especially of Indian corn, which will be greatly enlarged; it 4 the great of our country, and reas neeus it. Cine’ has already concentrated the deposite and distribution of pork,and whiskey made from corn; and will concentrate all those articles which form the peca- liar products of he great Western valley. We need a Southern 4 will in time have se SavannahgPepsacola, Charleston and Norfolk. Each will bave its own advantages; it is their interest to come here—it is on's to go there. If Cincinnati could bave had a direct line of easy communication with the Soathern ten ago, she would bave this day had thousand people: It — we pressed through the Kentucky road. Superior Court—spectal Cerm. Refore Hon. Judge Hot man. JvLy 9. —The State of Michigan ve. Phaniz Bynk.—An al lowance can net be made under the 308th section of the code, a8 amenced in 1857, where, aithough the onstruction and adjudication of a written instrument is material to the dectsica, yet other facts established by \estimoay are also material. William Lewis and Another vs. George Bryce and Wije. —An allowance can be made under the 308th section as amended ,in 1857, where an action is to set aside an assignment as fraudu ent, by reason of provisions on its face. Otherwise, when the judgment is on account of fraude dehors the instrument esiabliehet by testimony. ‘The phrase, “‘adjodication upon a will or o'her instrament in writing,’ imports construction and determination of rights based upon construction. This determination should be upon the instrament exclasively except | conducive 10 Interpretation ts adm votion Intended in the section applies which a Court of Equity would have been resorted to be. fore the coae to expound, or 0 expound and act upon « written instrument. Cheatr ts. Richard @ Echhart—The true inter. pretation of the contract is that the defendants were only to indemnify the piaintiff in care he was compelled to pay the duties on the 'y. Hin aalo, whion left the pur. chaser 1 pay the duties, he reesiving the price without par ing or being responsible for them, does not constitute = case in which the defendanta’ liability arises. Judgment for defendants on demurrer. Tees ond others vs. Folak and Bariling —Where aesic of goods |- obtained by fraudulent representations, the vond fre lien is not affeoted by the delivery of whal is tormed a withdrawing order for the goods in a bonded warehouse ‘And where ench purchaser sold the im a withdrawing order, get actual on was jaintifts. a ve. Ward —Order staying the exeention and opening the reference upon seourity being given, and other tegms. Jean B. Pichelti vs. The State Mutual Marine and Fire Insurance — —Insurance upon & vessel building at .—The defendant became a pureha-er of real estate from nin of the owner, and paid a deport. Before the day for the completion of the sontract an action was commenced against the vendor to eet aside a conveyance to him of the property im ques- tion, A lig waa duly Gled and notice of it per- sonal given. Held that the purchaser could not be com- polled to faldl bis contract. No pretesoe of collision ox- not only no | neither repugnant nor inconsistent. I¢is upon the | attempts to defeat the | The | le. Tears: | that he may | Sours axp West—Direct Traps. —The Cinera- | ! ‘Tr!p from Panama to Sew York THE JOURNKY AOKOGS THE [8THMUS—THE PANAMA RAILWAY—NAVY BAY —asPIN WALL—UMBARKING YOR HOME—THR GRORGE LAW AND HER ARRANGE- MENTS- ARKIVAL IN NEW YORK, ETO. Ttanded in a frigate’s boat, on the Panama beach near the Pacific terminus of the Panama Railroad, on the morning of the 4th instant. My luggage | was borne to the baggage car and checked free, | though being rather abundant in its show, through the courtesy of the conductors, to Aspinwall. A free | Passage was also tendered me. The steam whis- | tle was soon blown, and # few moments after we | were on our way from the Pacific to the Atlanti2; | and, with e bounding heart,I was tracing my course | across the Isthmus for home. | We were the first train of the morning from Panama. My object was to anticipate the arrival of the California passengers, momently expected at | Panama, by twenty-four hours, that I might secure | my state room on board the George Law, lying at Aspinwall, and make all other arrangements neces sary for a comfortable passage from Aspinwall to | New York. | The Panama Railroad is one of the themes of the { age. Its originators and the prosecutors of the enter- prise to its successful completion, deeerve the com- | mendation of the world. It will not seem to the he is familiar with many stupendous specimens of | engineering found in our own country, and the ob. | stacles im many places on our railways which have been overcome. The difficulties here were to be found in the climate, soil, the supply of iaborers, and the distance of the mar terial required in the different departments of con" struction in successfully executing the work. The first spadeful of earth on this noble work of the | Isthmus was turned in 1850. The opening of the | whole line of communication took place on the 28th | Janurary, 1855. From the Pacific side the grade ascends at no peint over sixty teet ir a mile, and the summit level | of the road is reached between eleven and <welve miles from Panama. The height of this level is | only two hundred and fifty feet, while the ridge rising above the summit gap, which was discovered | by Colonel Hughes in his explorations of 1849, is | two hundred and eighty-seven feet in elevation. | ‘The road has some sharp curves, owing to many | projecting spurs of hills, with deep intervening ra- vines, which characterizes the scenery of the coun- | try through which the line passes. One, however, is | surprised to find no greater elevations of mountains ' than meet his eye as he crosses this ocean barrier of the Isthmus. | From the summit to Aspinwall is thirty-seven | miles. No grade on the atlantic slope exceeds fifty-nine feet to the mile. The whole road has twenty-three miles of level track, and twenty-eight miles of the line is straight. The whoie line cuts its way aong unbroken fields of green and tropical foliage. No cultivation on either side ot the track is seen,. save now and then, when the line emerges out on | some plain of the bends of the Chagres and the Obispo rivers. Ona point of the Atlantic side over- looking the Chagres mver, and which rounas up its height in a beautiful oval mound of some sixty feet, the foundation stone of a monument to the original | projectors of the road has been laid. The names of | Stephens, Aspinwall and Chancey will be chiselled upon the cenotaph which will raise its shaft to the gaze of the thousands who shall hereafter traverse bd passage way between the oceans which they ve the wen tothe world. The bridge which crosses ci eves river es enn open 3 ove haciteed Set, | and four spans of one feet each. Its abut- Ftacar ahy eet sive teow wae cement, and \ feet above the low water of the river. in; the foli in its luxuriant pont, lives in c ways, by whic anc six or seven other cars piled one upon another, mangling and killing their occupants. A person on board cur train, who was present at the horrible oo- currence, gave me a graphic narrative of the soene as he pointed ont the locality, and in a moment after designated the long range 0! wes on the side of the road, near the edge of a hill side, where their bodies were interred. Our cars run rapidly down the inclined planes over which the train was moving at the time of the acci- dent; and atter an hour and more we found onr- selves ertering the lower grounds neighboring on Aspinwali. The Atlantic Ocean lay far out before us, and Navy Bay, making in from the sea, was on our lett. We skirted for a moment the edge of this fine bay, crossed a sluice of water which forms the island Manzanilla, on which is the Atlantic termi- nus of the Isthmus railroad. A few moments more po A TY ap ape ge | very beautifully situated for the pur; to which it ia now devoted, as the Atlantic end of the railway, pen Litepe fo welling houses, storehouses wor of this maguificent corporation, the name Railroad Com) ror | A letter to A. J. Center, Esq., late Vice President, and now Superintendent of the Panama Railroad, made me acquainted with this courteous ‘eman, who caused my luggage for a moment to be ted at the company's office. Mr N., one the message gentlemen I desire to ake acknowledge- make an ment and to tender my thanks,) and after an inter- | view with Mr. Bowen, the agent of the Mail Sieam- | Sip Company, my luggage was taken on board the steamer George Law. | _ At right angles to the railroad, which runs along | the edge of the island washed Navy Bay, juw | out a noble covered dock for steamers. | form of the dock is that of the letter T. at | of this dock lay at rest the noble I was soon to embark, with hundreds of New York. The dock is ina state of perfect A paling and gatewa: at right angles, the = ee ee er —— 5 Tiacty garden dled surroun a lants, flower and trees, Cag png ppb bf -: Here [ met for a moment Captain Herndon, com- manding the George Law, a rious reputation for his late explora’ Amazon,and holding a comm! in the United States navy. I had the pleasure of meeting ‘in not my impressions of bi his ific gentleman reputation as a scienti telli, and akififal navigator, will be as thoronghl, confirmed to my own observation, on our tri to New York,as they are of general remark and repute. The succeeding morning I called at their ad ich was made out for me. in reply to my q jon as to the amount for the ticket, replied, “nothing.” I had not anticipated quite so free a fare, and beg to acknowledge to thi: jtlemen the favor, and through him to the com x g z e a Li efit = Fg af Fy a Bae g line of which are scattered the magnifi houses for , Workshops, te.,tc. A wharf fay and the ralroad. "Eve tong 8 T dock wil be rom . EB a ck will be run bon f ar to the rallrond, stone store and freight house, orn the steamers’ dock, will be able. to unladen their cargoes with the atmos} “i Cee yi : rr. O ly 4 up m; with him forthe perry tn hor} tlong the beach, which tooks out. on the where, in front of the mess buildings to the com- the careless breakers roll in the ooean, their lovely beauty, foam, eterna transient passenger, however, so great a wonder, if } unding eh: These buil for their locality. at five hour. From the table I 2%, Which fronts on the see; listened, and gazed on those ceaseless and ever coming billows as they rash from their ocean homes, curl their arched lines slong the coral plain, and wake from their pouting li their sea music in ever recurring monotony, but ever varying avd solemn murmar from the ocean's hea By day and by night, when the san g's earliest hour, and whea the sun goes down at evening's latest fall, still they murmur on, loud apd monotonous, their solemm moan. One feels at times as if they sure would tire; but their voice is never hushed, their ocean melody is never stilled, their cadence from the solemn sea never ceases to break. In tront of these premises is an octave of halt- gore cocoanut trees, and the eye in e rear are flourishing with plants, shrubs and trees, which soon will embower these houses in tropical follage, blossoms and shades. at oni occupied the rooms formerly ap; ated to 'T., the chief engineer and superintend- ent of the railroad, who has been the prime agoney in all its advancement during the constractioa this magnificent transit, when contemplated as the highway between the two mightiest oceans of the world—the Atlantic and the Pacific seas. In the morning I watked with Mr. Center, my courteous host, though the spacious freight house, sd now being constructed by the company, three jundred feet in len; by eighty feet, more or leas, in width. This building contains, also, a specie safe, which, with its heavy stone walls and ponderous besom. comes up at mo. , iron doors, will be impervious to all cunning devices | and aasal | the: building at the station. of burglars. Time did not permit me to go through the workshops of the company, but are ample for all needed means for repairs and Everything is being laid out on a scale of large dimensions, in view of the expanded and heavy commerce of the Pacific seas, which this come hopes to divert from the Horn across their mus track. And they will do it, if it depends upon the proffer to all the world of all needed power, expedition, safety and speed. The telegraph between Aspinwall and Panama had already announced the arrival of the California pomenons ‘at Pavama and their leaving that station the cars. The train, therefore, was momgntly expected. Ere long it came. I was on the steamer, and one of the officers of the Independence still lying in the bay of Panama, approached me with a handful of letters, which had come for me by mail from San Francisco, With other officers of the vadron be had come over to accompany some friends, and to take leave of others at Aspinwall. The New Orleans steamer was firat despatched. The George Law began to fire up. Atthe gateway the passengers were exchanging their tickets. Ere long a gun was heard. It boomed from the bows of the steamer, and announced to the passengers that the good ship was ready to receive them. The dock gate was now thrown open A large body of cabin and steerage passengers crowded the dock; and without confusion, in is ample space, gathered to the side steps of the steamer, and decks. A lictle after dark, on the 5th inst., the lug- gage and spec'e were on board and stowed. Two more guns were fired, and the fine steamer was seen moving from her moorings and standrg out of the noble to sea. Navy Bay is a fine sheet of water, two and a half miles by four miles long. On its bosom now rode her British Majesty’s line of battle ship Orion, of ninety-ix guns, a, frigate, and a bomb ketch. gathered to the were in sufficient numbers among the to insure the usual ses; and « ser itch W. Taylor, the United States Navy, chaplain of the United States and every variety of f1 — the most perfect state of preserv: and tenderness. This supply is for steamer both from New York ty Aspinwall and from Aspinwall back again to New York. ‘he sea hotng. quite smootn, the skies all bright, i mild and bland, the A com- pany are in the very best of spirits, while the steamer is ploughing onward, nearer and still nearer to her destined port. Another Asx, it is presumed, the ship will be snugly at her dock, at tue foot of Warren street, of the great city, the home of some 5 5 5S. of us,and whence all others will disperse for their onder y have may be in our zi = § 3 7 z F i ot is leave, the steamer her wi Again her ton and with eloetty and said, “ God or aix hundred souls turned on their to find their happy of homes. a ed me with hands and warm hearts and hap- py numbers. Thank God I am again among those ‘who love me. A EF Mrs. Corntvenam Gorxa to Onto.The New York dent of the Baltimore Sun writes as follows: famons Mrs. Cannin; ofa myth pe ag the | estate case, ive to of Ser property a lay to Ohio, where it is said she has some relatives residing. yer pe them, it is enid, will shortly be i 4 4 i ‘ | ’ |