Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1855-03-29


the State-from the World. SINS.
Hiiiamstoon, March Is, 1855.
From the Boston Telegraph.
SLAVE CASE I'M CINCINNATI.
The Cincinnati Columbienap3pes the facts
of the slave case which us been lately on
trial in that city
1.-TWO col0red lllen named Alfred Raney
and Emanuel Points, have been the slaves Of
man who resided about three miles from Do
yer Kentucky. He owed some three or four
thousand dollars to one Baldwin Haurl, of
Missouri, who took the slaves, it is said, at
valuation OF $I400, according to the bill Of
sale, but with IL verbal contract that the said
slaves should be returned upon the repayment
of the said assessed value.
The slaves were placed in charge Of Stokes
Anderson and Paskett Anderson as agents of
Mr.. Halrl, and they brought them down from
Dover on the steamer Kenton. When the
boat reached hete, last Tuesday night, they
were fastened together by heavy trace chain
locked around their bodies, and were thus ia
ken, from the steamer Kenton and walked a.
lor.g the wharf Of our city to the steamer ia
cob Strander, which was to take them on.
This fact having leaked out habeas cor
plls was sued out against the Captain Of the
steamer Jacob Stranber.'
At the hearing before Judge Spencer and
Judge Storer, s. p. Chase appeared with
Judge Walker, and Messrs. Jolihe and Stallo,
in behalf of the colored men.
I The evidence before the court sustained the
statements CT facts above given. On the 10Th
inst, the case was argued by A. 0. Sullivan,
Esq, for the claimants, and by Judge Stallo,
for the negroes, Mr.. Sullivan admitted that
Slavery was an institution depending upon To-
cal law, and that the presumption OF the law
was in favor Of freedom; but he contended
that by comfy in the law of nations, "an al
len friend, subject of foreign power, when
he soourns abroad, is allowed the rights and
property Of his own land The claim on
this ground in the present case relies on
special comfy, by exposes law. e A. K.
Marshall, Sl8-Wheaton on Int. law.)
| He also argued from the Eleventh Section
of the compact Of 1889 between Virginia, the
United States and Kentucky, which provides
for the free and common use and navigation
of the Ohio, and that the respective jurisdic-
tons of Virginia and Kentucky on the rivers
aforesaid shall be current only with that which
may possess the opposite shore. Slavery was
one of the institutions Of Virginia, and of
course the master had right to hold slaves.
The right to use and navi gate carries, with it
the right to all things necessary for the enjoy
ment of the previously granted rights to use
and navigate
Judge Stallo made very brilliant argu-
ment on the other side.
"He held that the Ordinance Of 1889, upon
which much of Mr.. Sullivan's remarks were
based, did not sustain the doctrine that the
States, on each side of the Ohio river, had
concurrent jurisdiction on the shores of the
stream, by reasonable construction. The ju-
risdiction of the shore was exclusive, and over
the bed Of the stream concurrent. Virginia
could not, by the ordinance of 1889, grant
such jurisdiction; because, by cession of 1884,
she had previously ceded away, in express
terms, both soil and jurisdiction.
By this construction, though the act of
1889 granted right of use and navigation of
the Ohio to individuals; yet Virginia could
not make such grant of property, when she
had disposed of both soil and jurisdiction.
No man on vessel driven on our shore, by
necessity, could justify an assault on slave,
by saying that he belonged to Kentucky, which
had concurrent jurisdiction, and did not re-
cognze such assaults as offences. All persons
who came on Ohio soil, are free persons in the
eye of the law.
The flee navigation of the Ohio and con-
current jurisdiction on the stream are guaran-
teed, but the use of the shores when necessary
as an adjunct to the naviga ion Of the river
is comfy right, and subject to all imita-
tions called for by good morals, law or the
policy of the State.
Judge Stallo concluded by showing that the
right OF transit over free territory with slaves,
came either from positive grant by enact
ment or the law of nations or the Constitution
of the United States, that neither of these
did so and even in the Southern States it was
conceded that when an owner goes North and
acquires domicil, tho negro taken with him
caunot again be made slave
We have no report of the proceedings of
Saturday, on which day it was expected that
arguments would be heard from Messrs. Wal
kor, Jolitfe, and Hon. 5. P. Chase, for the
slaves, and I. Chambers Esq, for the master.
But by telegraph, we learn that on the 21st
the two negroes were brought into court, when
Judge Storer informed them that they were at
liberty to 60 free, but they preferred to return
with their master, and were at once conveyed
across the river without excite
The case is of great value as sustaining the
doctrine laid down in the Lemon case in New
YORK, and in other cases, that slaves brought
by their masters into free States become free,
unless they choose to return An effort is to
be made to induce the Supreme Court Of the
United States to overturn this law, and set up
instead Of it the universal law of slavery, but
with the signs, now in fnll view of that tribu-
nal, of spirit on the part of the State Courts
to maintain State rights, it is likely that the
effort will not be successful.
xr