Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 07.pdf/46

 The Case of The Sloop "Active? apprehension of civil war. The Governor appealed to President Madison and begged him to discriminate between opposition to the laws and Constitution of the United States and resistance to the decree of a judge founded on a usurpation of power, but Madison replied that the Executive of the Union was not authorized to pre vent the execution of a decree of the Su preme Court, but was specially enjoined by statute, wherever any such decree was re sisted, to aid in its enforcement. The Legislature then pru dently opened a door for retreat. In a new act, they still insisted on the right of the State; but "as sundry unforeseen difficulties" might arise in the way of enforcing it, and as the State was bound to protect at all events the per sons and property of the executrices of Rittenhouse, they appropriated a large sum to meet contin gent expenses, and WILLIAM otherwise to be used "as to the Governor might appear advisable and proper." The marshal, cleverly resort ing to stratagem as a means of escaping a bloody collision in the streets, secured ac cess to the rear of the house of the ladies, a day or two before the time appointed for the array of his posse, and having taken them into custody, held them as prisoners. A writ of habeas corpus was then sued out before Chief-Justice Tilghman, of the State Supreme Court. The case was argued with great warmth by Walter Franklin, the At torney-General of Pennsylvania, and Jared

25

Ingersoll on the one side, and on the other by Alexander J. Dallas, the United States District Attorney, and William Lewis, who had represented Olmsted for thirty years, and to whose stubborn qualities as a legal pugilist the final result was largely due. The Chief-Justice, in a sensible and wellreasoned opinion, made it plain that the Federal Courts were successors to the Con tinental admiralty jurisdiction, and therefore the validity of the decree of the Conti nental Court of Ap peals was a question exclusively for them, with which he had no right to meddle. He therefore remand ed the prisoners to the custody of the marshal.1 The Gov ernor then paid over the money in dispute to the marshal, out of the legislative ap propriation, and thus saved the ladies from imprisonment. But the drama had not yet closed. An other act remained. The litigation had ended with the tri LEWIS. umph of the nominal plaintiff, but it remained for the United States to vindicate their authority. War rants were issued against General Bright and his men for forcibly obstructing Federal process. The trials came on before Mr. Justice Washington, who was on all points opposed in opinion to the prisoners, and strenuous in his efforts to uphold the su premacy of Federal law. The jury, how ever, held out for three days and nights, refusing to convict. The Judge refused to discharge them. When two of them fell Olmsted's Case, Brightly's Reports (Pa.), I.