The Mississippi Creole. [volume] (Canton, Miss.) 1841-1851, 1841-06-12

made some remarks about last weeN-
THE SLAVE DEclstoS.-We have IA
ken pains 10 ascertain the Gecisiga lately
made by the Supreme Court OF Ono a.
Lebanon. concerning the passage Of saves
through this State. We now present the
information we have gathered Up
Farr and several others Uere tired i1
the Court OF Common Pleas for hl1i-
The indictment contained several eo1nis
varying the charge 70 meet the evidence
At the trial all the counts were ALAMEDA
ed but the fifth, which vas ioT . sinPls
riot This the Ohio law defines 60 oe
where three or more assemble together
with intent 10 DO an unlawful 1rt- wlla
force and violence, against the Peace-
or, If lawfully assembled, where tacy
shall agree 70 do such act, and move or
prepare therefor
l. appeared IN evidence that re de-
Iendants assembled together for The par
pose Of informing several colore1 per
sons in the custody OF one Rams lah0
claimed them as bis slaves On Virginia
and 10 be removing with them into Ms
souri,) Of their freed0m-aui q relesse
them-but there vas no evidence thar
these persons were slaves TIE CCart
charged the jury. IN sabs;ance-that any
three or more OF the defendants mish-
be convicted, although there vas no POS
tive evidence OF their assembling CO.
gether for the purpose OF committing anv
one or more Of the unlawful acts specIh-
ed; but If any one Of said acts we're pro
we'd TO have been committed after tae de-
PENDANTS assembled. fSe izrg nigga iafrr
that they assembled for that purpose.
without any direct pr0of Of saeh Iusen-
ton, other than the acts comm 49,
They also charged the jury thar it uzsie
no difference whether SAID cc,orei per-
sons were fres or slaves, It IN Rall.'
family, the defendants might psaceably
interfere IN their behalf. bgt had ne risi-
fOrcibly 70 interfere with them
The defendants took rblll Of ercer-i1as
to this charge o. the Court Thcy were
found guilty BY the Jlry-aa3 2 wrir or
error sued out Ct the Supreme Court Is
reverse The judgment Of the Common
Pleas The error iEned Is as f1lIovss-
because the Court CHARGED the rlrv.
thatIf any one or more Of said unlawflf
acts specified were proved % have been
committed. after the asSen5,in. t1-e-h-
er OF the defendants the Ilry Eht az
fer that said defendants assembled t1-
geiher for thar PurPcse, witho1. any
direct CT positive proof that such vas the
intent Of their assembling together. other
than the act or acts 50 proved 10 have
been committed"
The Supreme Court reversed ~ rll-
ment Of the CommOa Pleas upca the
/ ground that the Court erred n submit
ing the case % the Jury IN a wav that
/ left them TO regard the unlawful acts
done BY the defendants. gflsr they uls,
Y together, as coaclEsirs evidence 81 as-
semoIiug Win III uuiawgz1 tuzrur-
"The Court did 40, decide the eess-
ton whether a servant could Be- taken
through the state with his mas.er. or
whether the master removing fron o1c
slave state 10 another, could pass through
Ohio with hrs slaves, retaining his prep
erty IN them These questions we're aut
presented, or decided" Boz the J11xe.
IN giving the decision. made some Re-
marks indicating his own opinioc that ir
such case the slave would - free. Ne,
as those points were not involved ia The
decision, the remarks can cnly be rear
ded as extra judicial. and The guss,ioas
remain open ones IN this state
| From all this We cannot discover any
material difference IN the actual sta,c q
the case, as above given By the Gazeue,
and the impression Of L which vas 6rsi
circulated. Ifthere IS any difsrerce 1;
is more discrediiabls 70 the state ofOhsc
as the matter now stands. than Il The
questions spoken OF had all been brough,
up and decided on. As Il Is, a Erarai-
tous, and most unrighieous decision "a
given without the least possible necessity
for II An insult has bsea offered Il
slave holding states when IL wo1ld have
been easier 70 avoid il. Had these cues
tons come up and decisions been gives
upon them, We would have been warnes
boldly against entering the state Q
Ohio with slaves As II Is, Ne are IN
derhandedly informed that cur comsan,
is not desired. Give Us a bold, open En-
envy, to skulking assassin any tiuas.
The \. o. Bulletin remarked a shor
time ago speaking Of this sane sabisc.
that a similar decision had been given /.
Louisiana 1t IS very strange indeed !
Louisiana everdid such thing-nOswish
standing her laws are UNSURPASSED (,
eccentriciiy; but we are inclined to thai
; the Bulletin alludes 70 the case whiel
! came up in New Orleans Two or thrs,
months ago, against Mr.. Williams n,