Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1846-07-31
VIM R. Richardson Discharged.

This person who was charged with kid
mapping because he took back a fugitive slave
from Cleveland, has had a hearing on a writ
of Habeas Corpus, and been discharged
We anticipated this result, inasmuch as we
believed that Richardson, instead of violating
any constitutional provisions, acted in con-
formity with them, and with the decisions
Of the Supreme Court.
The following opinion Of the Judge, we
think no sophistry can overtnrn; and if the
people Of Ohio wish a different state Of
things, il they desire power to give legal pro-
lection to their own citizens, or 10 the stran-
ger within their borders, they must be 60
verned by other laws, and by a better Con-
stitution, than the present laws and Consti-
tuition Of the United States.
The mittilnus reciies that " Whereas, Will
liam Il. Richardson of the county aforesaid,
has been arrested on the oath Of James A.
Briggs, for that at the township of Cleve-
land, in said county, on or about the Both of
May. 1896, said William r. Richardson did
knowingly aid in carrying one Alfred Berry,
a black man, aud a resident of said Cuya-
hoga county. Of the State of Ohio, without
taking said Alfred Berry, before any Judge
or Justice of the Peace in said county, aud
without establishing his right of property in
said Alfred Berry. agreeably to the laws Of
the United States, before amy Judge or Jus.
tice in said county, and has been examined
by me, John Barr, one OF the Justices, &c.,
"on such charge and require to give bail in
the sum Of one thousand dollars" &C., which
H. H. f,;l,l 80 H., fMhoraf.ro g.,
The statute on which this prosecution is
based is the End section Of an &C! entitled an
act To precent Kidnapping,' found in Swans
statutes, p. GOO, which provides "That no
person or persona shall, in any manner, at
tempt TO carry ont of this State, or knowing
ly be aiding in carrying out Of this State. any
black or mulatto person without first taking
such black or mulatto person before some
Judge or justice OF the peace in the county
where such black or mulatto person was Ia
ken, and there, agreeably to the laws of the
United States, establish by proof his or their
property in such black or mulatto person."
This section of the statute was designed to
be applied, exclusively, 10 that unfortunate
class of persons who owed service in one
State and escaped into another, and to those
By whom they were arrested or seized. The
constitution and laws of the United States
recognize slavery, and protect the owner in
the enjoyment of this species of property
This prosecution was set on foot as shewn
by the miitimus, on the ground that Berry
was a slave, and was seized and taken out
Of the State tpithOut Il right IF property in
him beiag first established. In the case Of the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania g. Prigg, the
Supreme Court OF the United States have
decided, that the owner Of a slave, ii her Ivy
hip,cplF mr. n rant n .n,ratp nrrA.t and -
turn him 10 the State from whence he lrd.
without the aid OF the State authority, and
that all Sia'e legislation which inteJeres wiM
or enrGarrasscs such arrest as unconstitutional
and rOid, and Mat all legislation on Tie sub
ject is Exclusively Vested in Congress.
Every mitiimus must, substantially, shew
the accused is charged with SOME definite of
fence, or it cannot be sustained. No man
should be deprived Of his liberty, unless his
cHption and detention are authorized by law.
Upon the face of this mittimus, what has
Richardson done? He has arrested a slave
and taken him out of the State, uriih0uf prOr-
ing his righl bsfore tie Sia'e authority, and
this State legislation, in such a case, is Gbs0-
htiely null and roid, under the decision Of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
1t was said on the hearing, that it did not
appear but what Berry was a freeman, from
the mittimus before the Court, and that
Richardson was therefore properly charged
with kidnapping under the first section of
the act. 1t was, however, successfully an
swered, that it is not aUerred that Berry was
a freeman, and the offt is charged to be
The not probing property bsfOre remor1L I'm
less property may, therefore, exist in a free
man, the mittimus, itself, shews that Berry
was a slave, and the prosecution is instituted
on that ground. | am, therefore, of the opin-
ion that the arrest and detention of Richard
son are illegal, and direct him to be dis
charged.