some years—and instead thereof applied several times in vain to the Legislature to grant his claim.
On the 31st January, 1803, Governor McKean sent a Message to the Legislature, in regard to this decree of Judge Peters, (which he also transmitted,) reprobating severely these proceedings as violating the Law of the State, and the verdict of a jury, and as being wholly irregular.
In consequence of this message, an Act was passed 2d April, 1802, authorizing the Governor to direct the Attorney General to demand the money from the Executrices, or to bring suit against them in case of their refusal—and directing the Governor to "protect the just rights of the State," in respect of the premises by any further means or measures that he may deem necessary for the purpose, and also to protect the persons and properties of Elizabeth Sergeant and Esther Waters from any process whatever issued out of any Federal Court, in consequence of their obedience to the requisition made by the Attorney General,"—and, in the name of the Commonwealth, to give them a sufficient instrument of indemnification.
On the 29th May, 1807, Mrs. Sergeant and Mrs. Waters, (Executrices of Rittenhouse) filed a suggestion in the U. S. District Court, reciting the act, and showing that under that Act they had paid the money into the State Treasury, and that the decree of that Court, which had been made (by Judge Peters) in favour of Olmstead, was, as respected the rights of the State, without jurisdiction, and ex-parte.
Olmstead then demanded compulsory process of the Court—but Judge Peters, "fearful of embroiling the Government of the U. S. and that of Pennsylvania, and wishing his decision corroborated by the U. S. Supreme Court, refused to grant the process, and alleged these, and other reasons, in his return to a mandamus issued from that Court.
At the February Sessions, 1809, of the U. S. Supreme Court, this Return was argued, and a peremptory mandamus was ordered.
On the 27th February, 1809, Governor Snyder sent a message to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, informing them of the peremptory Mandamus, and that he was making preparations to call out a portion of the Militia to protect the persons and property of the Executrices against any process that might be issued under the Mandamus.
"On the same day he issued his orders to Michael Bright, a Militia General, directing him to call out a portion of the Militia.
The Senate and Lower House immediately passed Resolutions sustaining the Governor, "the tendency of which," (to use the words of Hall, an ultra Federalist) "was to inflame the minds of the people, and strengthen the seeds of rebellion which had been sowed by Governor McKean, and were now nurtured by his successor." (See Hall's Law Journal, vol. 3, p. 203.)
On the 24th March, 1809, the U. S. Marshal received the attachment process against the persons of the Executrices, and on the 25th was prevented from serving it by the soldiers of Bright.
On the 15th April, the U. S. Marshal eluded the vigilance of the Militia, by skulking secretly through a back way, and climbing a back fence, and thus served Mrs. Sergeant surreptitiously with the Federal process.
On the 17th, a Write of Habeas Corpus was issued from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, upon petition of Mrs. Sergeant, directed to the Marshal, ordering him to show cause why Mrs. Sergeant should not be released from custody under the arrest. The Marshal returned, for cause, the Writ of Attachment issued by the U. S. District Court—and the Judge, (C. J. Tilghman) after hearing argument—decided that it was not absolutely clear that the U. S. Court had no jurisdiction, and he therefore seemed to think it better to decide in their favour, than to endanger the peace of the community. He accordingly so decided, and Mrs. Sergeant was allowed by the State, in consequence of this decision by her own Chief Justice, to pay the money to Olmstead, and she was released.
To show that the great object with C. J. Tilghman in inclining his evident doubt and hesitation finally in favour of the United States, was to prevent the great mischief of embroiling the two Governments, we will quote his concluding words—they are these: "But although I say nothing concerning the policy of the Government, I may be allowed, without impropriety, to express my anxious hope that this long continued controversy will be brought to a termination without any material interruption to that harmony between this State and the United States, so essential to the prosperity of both. On the whole case, I cannot say that it clearly appears to me that the District Court of the United States made its decree in a cause of which it had no jurisdiction—I must therefore order that Mrs. Sergeant remain in the custody of the Marshal."
Gen. Bright was, soon after the conclusion of the case, prosecuted by the United States for the resistance, by his soldiers, of the execution of this process—of which he was found guilty, and afterwards pardoned by the President. But this prosecution forms no part of Olmstead's case, though it was consequent thereon and arose out of a part of the proceedings in that case—and yet we find it cunningly attempted to direct the attention of the public mind from the great civil case of Olmstead, (where Nullification was completely effectuated, and continued in force until the State herself consented to withdraw its operation and to pay over the prize money as decreed against her,) so as to direct that attention to the small criminal prosecution of Michael Bright for the part he took in executing the orders of his Sovereign State—which Sovereign State should have been the party proceeded against—(as she was the real criminal) if the U. States Government, or its courts, had dared to usurp the right of doing so—and indeed it is a wonder they did not venture it—unless perhaps their recent lesson had better instructed them, and restrained them from prosecuting, and affixing heavy penalties upon the State of Pennsylvania for Treason and Rebellion.
The statement above given of these proceedings is taken from the full and lengthy account of the case in the Law Journal of J. E. Hall, (of Baltimore) omitting only his very abusive remarks, as a Federalist, against this "Rebellion" (as he terms it) of the State of Pennsylvania and its two Governors. In one part of his observations he says, "Not only the Legislative Body (of Pennsylvania,) but the great mass of the people have nourished a spirit of hatred toward the wholesome provisions of the Common Law, generally, and of the Federal Judiciary in particular, which has justly excited the fears of all well disposed men. We have shown in the preceding narration, that the honour of this Rebellion belongs to Governor McKean—but he had an able coadjutor in the person of his successor who, being an honest, pains taking Mechanic, was elevated to the Gubernatorial Chair: Reasonable men, those who regarded the Union of the States as the anchor of political safety, and the supremacy of the Laws as the trident by which every thing dear was to be protected, shuddered at the sight of a powerful State arrayed in arms, under the sanction of the Le-
