The Enquirer

DOMESTIC.

OLMSTEAD'S CASE.

Process has been issued from the district court of the U. States, against general M. Bright and others, upon a charge of having resisted the laws of the U. States.

This measure is founded on the report of the U. States marshal of this district, who in attempting to carry into execution the process of the United States court, was resisted by a body of men in arms, acting under the authority of the governor of this commonwealth. The force ordered out by governor Snyder, were placed under the command of general Bright, who, in obedience to the orders of the governor, organized a military force, and acted according to written instructions, to him given by the authority from whence he derives his commission.

It is supposed, that every citizen who acted under the same authority, in resisting the decision of the supreme court, will also be prosecuted.

General Bright is as worthy a man as lives in the district, and we have no doubt, deprecates a resistance to the laws of the union, as much as any man; and indeed the same observation as to public fidelity, may be fairly extended to every man of the militia, who, under a sense of duty, turned out in obedience to orders.

The great evil of the case, is the impression it must make abroad, and the handle which it must afford to disaffection in other parts of the union.

The question, however, is so important to the public safety and to the security of the federation of the states, that it requires to be settled.

This state has been dishonored by the operation of an influence that has been for years pestilential to it--a noted tory of the name of Charles Smith, a member of the assembly, a notorious intriguer and adversary of the good order and policy of this state for several years, in the legislature, has unfortunately, wormed himself into the confidence of the imbecile and incapable men whom Mr. Snyder has selected for his advisers, and the state has been plunged into this difficulty and shame by that man's wickedness, and their weakness.

Smith's object was to obtain a seat on the bench of justice, and his intrigues it was that set on foot the proceedings in the legislature involving the case of Judge Henry, whom Smith expected to succeed, and whom he would have succeeded, if the legislature had not possessed honesty and integrity enough to resist the foul purpose.

Mr. Snyder cannot be supposed to possess extensive or critical legal knowledge, and being without a man of integrity or talents in his suite, was obliged to depend on this worst of all advisers, an inveterate political enemy, and a man who, beside being an office hunter, is reported to be in arrear to the state an immense sum of money--in a word, Smith was the author of the report issued lately in the name of the legislature, and upon his advice it is, that the state has been put in jeopardy, while the people at large abhor the proceedings, and the folly and wickedness by which they have been conducted.

We have refrained as much as possible from the discussion of this subject; preferring every private effort in our power to avert the calamity and shame, to the making it public--

We have used every means that the most generous dispositions could devise to avert the consequences that we foretold, and which might have been prevented if our counsels had been pursued.

"To the weak, the counsels of prudence are but as foolishness, and to the wicked they are terrible as the Typhoon," says the Persian poet.

As citizens, and as members of the same political body, we have done our duty--even the duty of forbearance and counsel--higher duties we have never lost sight of--and now we shall think it our duty to discuss the subject, in the utmost latitude, because we wish to do justice and to rescue the state and the legislature from the disgrace which attaches to these proceedings; as well as the citizens who, as militia-men, considered themselves bound to obey the orders of the executive.

We foresaw, as soon as the report of Smith was published, that the inevitable effect would be such as has now arisen out of it--that the delusion held forth of a future amendment of the Constitution was a mere delusion; as no such amendment could affect this case.

The attorney of the district, Mr. Dallas, we understand, has signified the determination of the executive to support the laws of the U. States, as he is bound to do.

The district court of the United States opens on Tuesday, the 11th instant, and it is supposed the citizens of the militia who have been unfortunately called on to act in this case, will be prosecuted under the act of congress of 30th April, 1790, entitled "An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the U. States." The 22d section of which is in the words following--"Be it enacted, that if any person or persons shall knowingly or willingly obstruct, resist, or oppose any officer of the United States, in serving or attempting to serve or execute any mesne process, or warrant, or any rule or order of any of the courts of the United States, or any other legal or judicial writ or process whatsoever, or shall assault, beat, or wound any officer or other person duly authorised, in serving or executing any writ, rule, order, process, or warrant aforesaid, every person knowingly & willingly offending in the premises, shall on conviction thereof, be imprisoned not exceeding twelve months, and fined not exceeding 300 dollars."
This case has now come to an issue which must involve those who have instigated and propelled it, in disgrace, if there is virtue or a sense of justice in the country.

The issue is, in fact, come to this, whether the constitution of the U. States is to remain in force or become a dead letter.

A great deal of sensibility has been affectedly excited by the hypothetical proposition for an amendment to the constitution, by our correspondent, Lucian—the sagacity of our correspondent has cast a satire on folly, which is most instructive—since it develops this singular contrast—

Men are found ready to support an outrage on the national constitutional law, by force and the bayonet—to make the military superior to the civil authority.

The same men affect to be alarmed at the discussion of a hypothetical amendment; with only suggesting the legal and constitutional mode of an amendment:

The question of Olmstead's case is no longer one depending on mere matter of evidence as to fact—it has nothing now to do with what the lawyers did, or the courts did, or the juries did, or the evidence of interested parties said 30 years ago; it is now a question not whether it is cruelty or humanity, justice or injustice to Olmstead—whether the state law of 1803 was an innocent, or an ignorant, or an outrageous act—whether it was a caprice of McKean to annoy lawyer Lewis—or a trick of the lawyers to increase the quantity of litigation and their fees—it is not whether the amiable women whose peace and comfort has been sported with for a fortnight, are to be dragged to a prison, or whether pragmatic ignorance shall obtain a place from a governor for supporting him in the wrong.

The plain question now is—shall the laws of the union be violated or maintained?

We have heard much talk about the independence of the judiciary, from those who wish to create a tyranny under the name of that independence—and by others who knew not what they themselves meant. But here is a point at which the independence of the judiciary, in its strict and constitutional sense exists, and demands to be supported and maintained, and in which it must be maintained, or there is an end to government.

It is not the "old sow eating up the litter of pigs," which Fenno predicted; but the pigs eating up the old sow; Massachusetts, only about a third or fourth in size of the litter, grunted a little, and set the wise men of Congress into the panics, but here Pennsylvania displays her tusks, and threatens to rip up her bowels.

These doings cannot go on—the essays of parties written in newspapers thirty years ago, the evidence or the allegation of men who received a part of the spoil illegally torn from the proper captors at the time, the evidence of the British crew captured, at the time, is not to be held forth at this day as of greater validity than the decisions of the court established from its own members, by the most virtuous assemblage of men that, perhaps, ever met together, the old Congress; these things are all brought forth now in vain, to prop up error and to mask the imbecility which has plunged the state into its present perplexity.

The case stands upon the constitution of the United States altogether—and may be very briefly addressed to the understanding of every man in the few following sentences.

The case of Olmstead was carried into the supreme court in legal form—and after having been previously investigated and decided upon in the district court.

The supreme court has jurisdiction of "all cases in law and equity, arising under the constitution, the laws of the U. States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more states; between a state and citizens of another state; between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states," see article III. section 2.

The powers of the supreme court are laid down in the law of the U. S. of Sept. 1789, section XIII. corresponding with the powers recited in the constitution; which clause states, that—“The supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction from the circuit courts, and courts of the several states, in the cases herein provided for."

The district courts have jurisdiction in admiralty cases as in the constitution.

The supreme court issues no execution on its own decrees in matters of appeal, but sends a special mandate to the inferior court to award execution.

Now the decree of the supreme court is issued, and the inferior court has obeyed the law of the U. States.

Will the parties who have obeyed the mandates of the governor submit, or resist—or evade the law of the U. States?

If they are arrested, or if they submit, can the state executive extricate them? for force is ridiculous—and the ordering and the appearance of it at the best, was ridiculously in the beginning; and in the state it has arrived at, preposterously ridiculous. No wise man ever undertook what there was a moral impossibility of his ever accomplishing—where are we now?

It may be said, the advisers of Mr. Snyder were either very stupid, or very ignorant or very wicked—but his advisers escaped behind the curtain, and those who under a sense of duty obey their orders, are the unfortunate victims of their imbecility, their folly or their wickedness.

Man drest in a little brief authority,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high Heaven,
As maketh Angels weep.

The state rights are pretended to be involved. Had the nugatory law of 1803 never been passed, would the state have been involved; every rational man must say, the question would never have arisen. Well then, where are the state rights? In that law.

But this suit was instituted in court before that law passed. Then the pretence of state rights under that law is ridiculous.

But if there were any other rights infringed—why was not the jurisdiction demurred to? Why was there no protest against the proceedings in the U. States' court, made a question in proper form before the nugatory and absurd and unconstitutional law of 1803, was passed. The object was to wear out the life of Olmstead, which had been already wasted in pursuit of his property.

But the man was made of sterner stuff. the man who could direct Captain Houston to quit the deck of the Active or, he'd shoot him, was not willing to abandon, but with his life, the fruits of his dangers and his sufferings and his just vengeance, and of 30 years most barbarous litigation,

A committee of the legislature, a few years ago, had the humiliating meanness to recommend, that a land warrant for 1,000 dollars should be offered to Olmstead in lieu of his claim. What: give a man a land warrant for 1,000 dollars, who had no claim?

Olmstead spurned it: but it is now said that he offered to take something less than his right, say eight, or ten, or 15,000 dollars; and it is now attempted to be put up as an argument of his having no right or claim whatever, because it is said he was willing to accept less.

Might it not with more strength be said, that the legislature is not very apt to give 1,000 dollars where it is fairly due—much less to give 1,000, where there was none; and that their offer was good evidence of their own conviction, that the man's claim was fair and just?

The matter has now come to that issue, when reserves are no longer requisite;—while there was a hope of seeing an end to it in any delicate or honorable way, we wished to avoid saying much—too much now cannot be said on the odious oppression and plunder of an injured, aged and brave citizen, who fought and suffered in the cause of his country. Aurora.

New-York, April 5.