The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1855-04-12
SLAVE CASES IN CINCINNATI.

article from the Cincinnati Gazette published
on the fourth page of the Era, the reader will
learn additional particulars concerning the re-
remarkable that clergymen should have figured
so largely in the proceedings, the claimants in
all the cases being protested ministers of Him
who came to preach deliverance to the captive,
the opening of the prison doors to them that
are bound. Such creatures bring dishonor
upon their profession, and the sacred cause to
which it is dedicated.
The letter of our correspondent places the
conduct of Judge Storer in a most unenviable
light. But what else could be expected from a
man who, with some amiable qualities, has no
decision of character, scarcely any moral cour-
age?
The United States Marshal, it seems, was
attached for contempt of Court, not in rear
| resting the girl Rosetta, after she had been ad-
judged free by Judge Parker, but in refusing
to produce the girl, after this re-arrest in ODE
dience to second writ of habeas corpus issued
by the State Court For this offence, the
Judge fined him fifty dollars and committed
him to prison. A writ of habeas corpus was
then granted by Judge Mclean, of the United
States Supreme Court, on which the Marshal
was brought before him on the Sd. The case
was argued for the Sheriff, who committed him,
by Messrs. Chase, Walker, and Jolliffe, and by
Senator Pugh for the Marshal. The next day,
the Judge discharged the prisoner, pronoun-
cling his Imprisonment illegal.
We rejoice that Judge Parker so ably and
firmly maintained the independence and dgni-
ty of the Court. His decision on dischargng
the girl is spoken of by our correspondent as
admirable; it contained the following import
ant points:
a. That whenever writ of habeas corpus
was applied for by the proper affidavit, it was
the duty of the Court, and as to which it had
no discretion, to allow the writ, and to inquire
into the cause of the capture and detention.
go. That where it appears, by the return to
the writ, that the person was held under pro-
cess of law regularly and properly issued charg
ing person with any offence Of which it had
jurisdiction, it would not 90 beyond the writ,
but would remand the person to such legal GUS
tody.
"3. That upon writ of habeas corpus, issued
by the Courts of the State, the Court might and
would look into the legality of the detention of
persons held under process of United States
Court, and if such detention were found to be
illegal, would grant discharge therefrom.
"a. That to authorize the issuing of q war
rant for the arrest of fugitive, under the Flu
gitive Slave Act, it was necessary that il should
be shown by affidavit, and that the warrant
should show that the party claimed was held to
service and labor in State where Slavery was
recognised, and that, while so held to service
and labor, had escaped out of such State.
%. The warrant In the present case only re-
cited that the party claimed had escaped from
the claimant, and that she owed service to him
in the State of Kentucky. 1t did not show,
that while held in a state of slavery, in State
permitting the same, she had escaped there
from. The warrant was therefore fatally de-
fective and void, and for such insufiiciency
alone the girl was entitled to her discharge
sc. That, even if the warrant were regular,
she was entitled to discharge upon the facts
before the Court. The Court distinctly and
broadly affirmed the doctrine, as an immutable
principle of law in Ohio, that whenever a slave
by the consent of the master, set his foot upon
the soil of Ohio, he was free man, equal in
all respects to his master, and no power on
earth was strong enough to take him back
81. That it made no difference that the
bringing was by the agent of the master. The
master, in this respect, as in other cases of
agency, was bound by the act of his agent.
80. That under the Constitution of Ohio the
alleged right of transit with slave property
through the State did not exist. Slavery could
have no existence beyond the territory where
established by law, which law could not be
carried beyond the territory of its enactment.
This rule did not interfere with the Fugitive
Act, for that contemplated an escape, and not
the consent of the MASTER
In the proceedings before the Commission
er-and these Commissioners are petty Off
GERS, the mere creatures of the United States
Judges-that gentleman loftily remarked that
he would not recognise the acts of the State
Courts, but he appreciated the importance of
the case, and would take time for considera-
ton. On the Sd instant he delivered his deci
sion, discharging Rosetta as free, on the ground
that she had been conveyed into Ohio with the
consent of her master, and was not therefore
a fugitive from Slavery.
But suppose his decision had been precisely
the reverse-what then? According to the
Black Act theory, he is irresponsible, and his
decision is final. Congress has attempted to
confer on him the high provocative of pro
nouncing finally upon the right to liberty of
every inhabitant of State whose right shall
be challenged-and if the infamous Fugitive
Slave Act is to be regarded as lar, there is no
power in any Court of Common Pleas, or in
the Supreme Court of the State, to break the
force of this decision, and save its victim.
Meet on, nh of,cal liz fbar do ,yo
the People of Ohio as having Judge who,
scornng to submit to Federal usurpation, has
dared to maintain the independence of the
State Judiciary. The third point of his deci-
sion we hope to see maintained in every State,
at the cost of whatever conflict with the Fede-
raj authorities.
"Upon writ of habeas corpus, issued by the
Courts of a State, the Court might and would
look into the legality of the detention of persons
held under process of United States Court,
and, if such detention were found to be illegal,
would grant a discharge therefrom."
This principle cannot be abandoned, without
sacrifice of State Sovereignty; without an alb
dication by the State of its highest prerogative,
that of protecting its citizens; without exposing
it defenceless to the encroachments Of Federal
Power. Should its maintenance lead to con-
fict between the State and Federal authori-
ties-and, beyond all doubt, there is plain con-
tradiction between it and the claim of the Fed
eral Judiciary-as the States are original, the
Federal Government derivative, as the States
are more essential than the Federal Govern
ment to the preservation of Liberty, if one of
the parties must give way, let it be the Federal