Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1847-10-29
Another Decision.

Through the kindness Of a friend we are
enabled to furnish our readers with the follow
ing account of the trial of Thomas Hardy and
Johu Smith, in the Gibson Circuit Court, in
the state of Indiana, upon an indictment for
Kidnapping, at the August term. The ac-
count we publish is from the pen of a distin-
guisheI citizen of Inlianl, who was Counsel
for the defendants. The subject is one of
interest to our readers of this state, who will
perceive with qualification that the Judicial
authorities of our sister state of Indiana, have
the moral courage to administer the law with
a proper regard for the compromises of the
constitution, unawed by the fanatical inhuen-
ces which have too much prevailed in some
other free states.
"TIIe facts are these. On the - day of
February last, the defendants, who reside in
Gibson CO., Indiana, were approached, late
IN The evening OF that day, by a negro man
who complained of being cold and hungry.
After some conversation had past, the defen-
dants told the negro, who said his name was
Sam, that he was a slave, and had run away
from his master. This he denied. The de.
PENDANTS, however, insisted that he was a
slave, arrested him and took him to the house
of Hardy; one ofthe defendants, in said coun-
ty of Gibson. That night the negro acknowl-
edged that he was a sieve and said he belong
ed to Alexander Barrett, of Henderson Coun-
ty, Kentucky. The next morning the defrn.
dants removed Sam from this state to Ken
lucky, and delivered him to Alexander Bar
ret in the town of Henderson. 1t was pro-
ven that Sam was a slave, and that he be-
longed 10 Barret-and that on the morning
after he had run away, Barret had publish
ed a handful, therein offering a reward for
the apprehension and delivery of Sam to him.
The indictment was found at the March term,
and the case came on to be tried at the Au-
gust term, 1877, of the circuit Court Of Glib
son county, Indiana.
at was contended by the defendants coun-
sci, on the authority of Prigg VS.. the Com
nonwealth of Pennsylvania, l6 Peters Rep.
$40, that as it was proven that Sam was a
slave, the removal of him by the defendants
from this state to Kentucky, could not con-
stitute the crime of Kidnapping.
'That the owner of a fugitive slave has a
right by the constitution of the u. s. to take
him whenever he can find him without a
warrant; and may remove him from a nom
slaveholding stale to the state from whence
he escaped, lUith0ut certificate from a Judge
or Magistrate. That if another arrests and
takes such slave without warrant, to the own
er, who ratlhes the act Of such person, it be-
comes in law, the act OF the owner.
"The Court decided, Judge Lockhart pre-
siding, that a notice published by the owners
OF a fugitive slave, offering a reward for his
apprehension &c., was a sufficient authority
for any person to arrest such fugitive and
take him TO his master. The defendants
were acquitted-De Burler for the State
Hall and Pitcher for defendants. "-Hender-
son hentuchian.
When we first read the above we were dis
posed to declare that such a decision was an
outrage on the National Constitution, but up
on further reflection we are by no means so
sure of this. The decision involves a prin-
ciple Of action which is new 10 US; and not
being acquainted with the Law Of Arrest, we
cannot say but the Judge was correct in his
views. A runaway apprentice for whose APP
prehension his master offers a reward, is ar
rested by virtue of the publication of that re-
ward, and no special warrant is deemed ne
cessary. If we mistake not, the same is true
of an escaping criminal, and the fact that a
reward is offered by the authorities for such,
Is regarded as sufficient warrant for his arrest.
1t these summary proceedings in the case
Of the ascending apprentice and of the fu-
g'iiye from justice be constitutional, we must