Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1853-08-27
NATIONAL INTELLIGENCER.
OPINION OF JUDGE MCLEAN, OF OHIO, ON THE
FUGITIVE SLAVE Law.

Joined Decision Of Judge MCLEAN, in Fugitive
Slave Case which was determined last week at
Cincinnati, Git being the first case under the late
law that has arisen in Ohio, and the first decided
by Judge Of the Supreme Court of the United
States vet the Opinion of the Judge, cmbodying
question appears to be of such general interest to
the People, equally of the Northern and Southern
States, that we induced to place it entire before
our readers.
The name of the fugitive slave was George Me-
Query, who ran away from Washington county,
Kentucky, about four years ago, and since that
time has been living in various parts Of Indiana and
Ohio principally in Troy in the latter State where
he has been twice married. He did not deny that
he slave, and expressed his willingness to go
back to his master, if he would promise not to sell
him. He did not complain of bad treatment, and said
that he had no thought of running away until about
him by those whom he accompanied. The evidence
in the case was conclusive and left nothing open to
the counsel for the defence but denial of the con-
stitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, which
ground they assumed
The arguments having been concluded, Judge
MCLEAN made the following decision:
In giving my decision in this may not be mpro
per say word in regard the manner in which has
II in the first instance issued writ Of habeas corpus
on affidavit that the defendant, be may be called
was of his liberty The object to
inquire the legality of his imprisonment An order
was aerwardsssued the Deputy Marshal Of the United
States with the object in view 1t was to inquire
whether MoQuery was legally detained. With view Of
showing legal detention the claimant Henry Miller has
attempted to show that the defendant fugitive from
labor in Kentucky. The inquiry undoubtedly was egti-
mate The defendant must be released if Illegally detain
ed and it is for the claimant show that his detention
was legal
The first question that arises may be the facts of the
case The defendant has attempted to show that Nc
Query was his slave in the State of Kentucky His son.
Jacob Miller, twenyone years of age introduced to
prove the fact This witness states that. since he
has known any thing this person has been the slave OF
his father has lived under his control and management
and has been treated the other slaves persons owing
labor and service to his father also that, about four
years ago, McQuery abconded with three others, who
also owed service to his father.
VIM. Kelly, the second Witness corroboraes the first
witness. He was near neighbor to Mr.. Miller, and
knew that this "boy' his servant; they were init
mately acquainted with the family with whom they fire.
ouenty visited and always this defendant acting in
the statement of Mer the absconding of this
"boy," and states the time and circumstances of his
leaving
James Kelly brother of the last witness
the testimony previously given. He also intimately
acquainted with Mr. Mlers family and had known this
"boy" eleven twelve years; he knew him as the SER
want of Mr. Miller.
The witness Yocum corroborates the first three He
had lived the parties for many years during which
this defendant employed managed and controlled
the servant of the claimant.
Mr.. Trader, Deputy United States Marshal, states
conversation had with McQuery who said that Miller
his MASTER and expressed regrets that he had left
his service; said he persuaded By Steven who alb
seconded at the same time.
This statement is corroborated by Mr.. Black to whom
McQuery confessed that this his master, and that
he left him under the circumstances stated By the other
witnesses.
Now so far as the status of this individual concerned
he IN a cal w moi
clearly establish the claim of Henry Miller. This is
particular and circumsantiai entirely unconradicted
tion the cearest and decided conviction that this
person in the condition Of servant in Kentucky
have never in any that have investigated, cases
where damages are claimed which present similar points,
known claim more clearly made out.
II has been urged that has not been proven that Ken
lucky was slaveholdng State. Judges Of the Supreme
Court of the United States recognise the laws OF all the
States do N State Courts the laws Of each county
The jurisdiction Of the Supreme Court of the United
States extends throughout the Union and into the Terri
tories Its Judges presumed to know the laws OF
each State, and the extent of State jurisdiction DO
not say that such would be the rule this examna
ton before State Judge or Commissioner OF the uned
States.
Of the States special law has been passed
ccgnisng the statute laws of other States In such
cases nothing than exhibition of the statute law
would be necessary But where trial like this is had in
State where such provision exists the State judge
and perhaps the Commissioner might require legal proof
Of the existence of slavery in the State where the claim
ants resided But this is not necessary before Judge
of the court whose jurisdiction is with
the whole country. Kentucky is known to be slave
State.
The declaration Of Senator from Virginia is alluded
to in support of the argument that slavery does not exist
by law in the slavehoding States am really sorry to
hear this argument. The distinguished Senator was
speaking of Territories into which friends Of the
South desired to take their slave property and declared
that Shareholders had the right to take slaves where there
legal recognition of the relation. This was an
error. The great principle is this Slavery is local. and
can only exist by the authority Of law. may remark
that the Of bringing out this decision which
was made in the from Mississippi.
1t has been claimed that the STAKEHOLDER had the right
to take his slave into the Territories where it not e
Called, and where long usage had sanctioned the in
stitution. Usage constitutes law, after sufficient lapse
Of time But the Supreme Court has decided the claim
to be without foundation Slavery exists only by local
law.
In the saveholdng States the laws provide for the
don Of master and slave they limit the power of the
former and protect the rights Of the latter To deny the
Iegazaon of the relation in these States is to shut
eyes to what is written and to the decisions Of the
courts. isN
lam gratfcd that in the examination and argument
of the case, there has been uniformly gentlemanly
bearing-no abusive epithets used,
pected This must draw the appreciation Of all sensible
persons. G
There has been no evidence on the part Of the defend
ant except the admissions by the claimants attorney
which were, that McQuery had lived four years in the
State Of Ohio during which time he had been recognised
treated and considered free This was proper
This is the theory Of our laws and constitution Every
in Ohio without regard to color is presumed 10 be
free man her laws do sanction the tread Of slave
This treatment of McQuery in Ohio therefore nothing