Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1850-09-14
Slavery Excitement at IIarrlsburgh.
Judge Pe@sOn's Opi'ion-Disch@ge Of h
.Sldues.
HAnRIsnuRan, Aug. q.

Whsoh, george BROOKS, and Bllsy. These
three defendants, negroes, escaped during
the month of July, from their masters, in
Clark county, Va, near Buttletown, or Ber-
ryvillc, aud on the same night the owners of
the negroes missed also, three horses, sad
dles, aud brides.
William Taylor, the owner of two of the
slaves, aud George H. Eisler, a resident of
Betfyyille, arrived here some days ago, and
made information before Henry Beads, Esq,
charging the above named defendants with
larf my and as being fugitives from justice.
Upon this a warrant was issued, and the
meu were arrested and lodged in jail.
On last Tuesday, an application was made
to the Court, then in session, to bring these
meIi before them on writ of hdbcas corpus
tile next morning, which was granted; and
the next day the Court decided TO postpone
the case until Friday, in order to dispose of
the Jury trials first.
On last Friday, defendants were brought
into Court, defended by Messrs. Rawn aud
Judge McKenny, two eminent lawyers at
Our Bar. The owners, William Taylor, Geo.
II. Disler, underwent long examination,
and II was conclusively proven, (as the Court
admihed) that these men were slaves from
the State of Virginia, and that the horses sto-
rendering their escape from bondage ensy
and effective.
Tue whole day Of Friday was occupied by
this examination and the argument by coun-
sci on both sides. The prosecution was con-
Quoted by Messrs. Trnkcl, Lamberton, and
Carson, all we'll known rs the most eminent
lawyers in our town; when, on Saturday
morning, his Honor Judge Pearson deliver
ed tic following opinion:
These cases were before the Court ON
writs of habeds corpus, the defendants having
been committed on warrants issued by a
Justre of the Peace. 1t seems that oaths
were made, charging them with having stolen
certain property. On these oaths warrants
were issued, the defendants arrested, brought
before the magistrate, and without hearing
committed TO prison. 1t might be implied,
aud isudniiited, that the offence, il any, was
committed in the State of Virginia.
Several objections have heon raised to the
regul.nty ofthc warrants of commitment.
/. y'hot i is not stated where the offence
VIZ iin.rtcd.
2. That the ownership of the property
stolen is not sufficiently ayerred.
The defendants have also given evidence
TO show the irregularity of the proceeding,
and ON what circumstances the charge was
founded. The oath was made, aud note
of the facts stated on the docket Of the Jus.
tice, but not signed by the dcponent.
We are of opinion that the whole proceed
ing is very loose and irregular. The war
rant of commitment should state whose pro-
perry was stolen, and where the offence was
committed. Had that proceeding been re-
gular, we should not have looked beyond it,
except when called OH to fix the amount OF
bail, and possibly TO see whether any gross
mistake had been committed by the magis-
trate.
The defendants have called the party ma
king the charge, and also the man whose
property was alledged TO have been stolen,
TO show the circumstances under which it
was stolen, and from the evidence, it seems
that three horses were taken in the State of
Virginia, probably by the three prisoners,
who were proved to be absconding slaves
two of them belong TO Mr.. Taylor. They,
il is stated, took with them two of their mas
ters' horses, with saddles and brides, rode
them about thirty miles, and turned them
loose.
The slaves were pursued, and the horses
found where they had probably been aban-
doned. In the case of William, called John,
Strange, there is no evidence that the horse
was stolen, although it is alledged William
rode off horse belonging TO Mr.. Litt|ejoln
We have no proof of Mr.. Littlejohn's horse
having been stolen at all. From aught that
appears, he may have been lent. We must,
therefore, dismiss William without further
investigation, as there is no ground whatever
for committing him. Several questions have
been raised by the defendants counsel.
First: That the proceeding could only he
sustained under the act of Congress- there
fore the warrant was Illegally issued on an
oath made in Pennsylvania. We have no
doubt that Inc warrant was improperly is
sued, as the oath should have stated that the
crime was committed in Virginia, and that
the defendants had fled from justice. But
we do not agree 10 the position assumed that
the oath must be made under the act OF Con-
gress. When so made and properly certlii-
ed, or when the Indictment is found in anoth-
or State, and properly authenticated, we con
slider it conclusive, and we have no rlght 10
inquire beyond it. But when fugitives are
pursued into Pennsylvania, we consider II
strictly legal to make an oath before the OIL
fcer ofthe law here-have a warrant Issued
the party arrested and committed, in order
TO await requisition ofthe Governor OF the
State from which he fed. Ii is not so much
a'matter of comfy as police regulation OF
our own, to get clear Of dangerous delin-
quents We do not sustain the proceedings
for the benefit of the State whose laws are
violated, alone, but for our own saitt". We
are well aware that tho legislation OF Con-
gress is exclusive in many cases; and If the
rights of Virginia alone were concerned, she
could not urge lis TO do more than carry INTO
effect the Congressional provision. But eve
ry state has a right to protect its own clti,
zens from the ielons of other States; and II
we choose to permit our magistrates to exer-
else such jurisdiction OH an oath made under
our own laws the fugitive charged with telo-
ny cannot lawfully complain