his judicial style somewhat lacked a kind of chaste simplicity which is quite desirable. But, subject to this criticism, he was, in my judgment, the greatest master of Judicial English of whom I have ever had any knowledge.
So there were great arguments in this case. Great arguments make great opinions.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Judge Smith, one of the three judges dissenting as to the opinion that the law of 1850 was unconstitutional, but concurring in the result on the ground that the process under which the relator was detained was insufficient.
This triumph for freedom was universally acclaimed throughout the United States. Charles Sumner wrote to Paine, under date of August 5th, saying, among other things:—
"I congratulate you upon your magnificent effort which does honor not only to your state but to your country; that argument will live in the history of this controversy. God grant that Wisconsin may not fail to protect her own right and the rights of her citizens in the emergency now before her. To her belongs the lead which Massachusetts should have taken."
Wendell Phillips wrote him under date of November 24th:—
"I hoped to have met you last evening to tell you with what unbounded delight I read your argument in the Booth case. You know you have many companions in the pathway of that effort; but I think none excels you in the completeness and force with which the points are presented and some of the views with which you sustain points made by others are strikingly original."
These were indeed stirring times; the great struggle for freedom was on; even then the dark clouds of civil and titanic war hung low in the horizon over our devoted country.
In July 1854 Booth, and another, being indicted in the Federal District Court for violation of the law of 1850 in aiding Glover to escape, applied for habeas corpus to the Supreme Court of the State. The application was denied on the ground that the Federal Court had acquired jurisdiction and, the petitioners being held by lawful process, another court could not interfere.
After they had been tried and convicted the Supreme Court, on similar application, discharged them on the same grounds as those relied on in the first case, except that there was no question then as to the form of the process and, of course, no room for the
