Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-04-07

ihen the girl was persuaded to leave him. Was
this an esca1ls from kentucky into Ohio? Did any
1tc really suppose it to be espape? She was
1niranchised, according 10 decisions in slave
States, lWheeler's law of Slavery 34S; Sth Lolisis
ana reports, 4I51 BY these decisions, il Nas not
IN the power of her former owner to reduce her Ia
slavery. She had been brought here ly the act of
her masters agent, and though there were send
contrary decisions, vet many decisions in slave
States held this to be voluntary emancipation She
hid not escdDtd. 4.
There is another view of the case In this State
we do hot look slaves as articles of propcrty.--
We believe ~ tie Declaration Of 1ndependences-A
We believe that every law GeprvinG man OF hia
freedom is an oppressive law. Slavery canhot exs
ist beyond the local law that toerates it. Force,
and force sanctioned by law, originated and sus.
tains slavery, and when you pass beyond the reach
of that force, master and slave arc ennnl Tha
slave in Maryland is held by different law than
slave IN Virginia, and some persons, legal slayos
in Nirginia, are free when they pass into Maryand
The Missouri law is different from tho kentucky
law, and the Ohio law is different from both. Tho
master hUlds his slave by one law in one State b1
another law in another State, and in Ohio by none
at ALL Rosetta therefore free by a double
title. ls by being brought into this State by her
master; and, 21, by being beyond the lucal law
which makes slavery. Dir. @. referred to several
decisions on this point in this State, which settle
the point that the right of transit of masters with
their slaves through Ohio does not exist in this
state. The girl was free at Columbus st,
There another point. The Frobate Court,
constitutional court, had integyened between the
freeing of this girl and the issue Of this warrant,
That court had decided the girl free, and appuints
ed proper person as guardian. The only way to
test this proceeding was by writ of error as the
Probate Court had exclusive jurisdiction in the APP
pointment Of guardians. But the opposing party
in this case had chosen to tramplo the laws of their
State under foot. and set them aside. t.
But again. Mr.. Dennis0n had been to Columbus;
had ample opportunity TO converse with the girl
had submitted the question to her, and she had
chosen freedom, and he had bidden her farewell,
saying he should see her moro. Had this de-
CURED in Kentucky and been proved before Ken
tccky court, they would have decided it II case Of
voluntary emancipation. ...e
The only remaining point was respecting the
power OF this court in reference to process issued
by a [. s. Commissioner. 1t was the duty of this
court 70 issue writ of habeas corpus in all eases
Of unlawful dcteDtops. The law made no eXcep-
uun IN favor OF a Marshal or Commissioner Should
they arrest me, said Mr.. c., the coprt would issue
II writ quick. If the court can issue writ IN my
case it in the of the hulnbiest child. Tot
have no power withhold the protection of the
State, and this doctrine the have frequent
ly acted.
MIR. G. denied the authority or the Commission
ers to issue warrant in this case or in any
case; but he must show n case within tho strict
letter of law. lie had no jurisdiction in this case
7 " was not shown that the girl had escaped from
slavery. In any event. this court had right ID
interfere. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin had
interlercd even in Of conviction bofore U.
5. Court
Mr. c. closed by an eloquent aapeai in behalf
not only Of the support OF the constitution of the
United States but also of the State of Ohio which
declared there should be no slavery in Ohio.
Mr.. Wolfe, OF louisville said he should not ar.
gue the case before this court but should argue it
before the United States C0mmisoner-the tribun-
ul they had chosen.
Judge Parker then stated he would give his de-
csion ON Thursday Morning, al o'clock.
In the meantime, it is rumorcd the case will ba
heard to-day before the Commissioner.
m r,,,-psr,
At 10 \. NJ, Judge Parker gave his decision OH,
the lhbcas corpus, that Rosetta was free, and the,
following order was entered ON the minutes of the
Court
The decision had declared that the girl was FREQ
and that the warrant was detective.
Attornev Chambers, on the part of he cainidnt,-
(liev MIR. Dcnnison, said that trial was pending
before the Commissioner, and they only waits
ing the appearance of the /. 5. Marshal, with the
girl to conclude the argument and bear the deeis=-
ion Of the Commissioner. II this warrant be de-
fcctyc, the Fugitive SlaYe Law allows the Marshal
to arrest without warrant. We shall be compelled
to demand of the Marshal to re-arrest and deliver
her over to the Commissioners at.
The Court SAID 1t the counsel IN the care can
agree upon any plan diiierent than under the or'
der oil tle C3ur' IL Would DC satisfactory rs the
Court wished to take no steps to emDarrass any
mlni;terai oiheor, Put .le process ei ms court
Should DE eAeeu'eu oJ MS oineers Il theS nave tne
power. o,. -, g.
Attorney oh"Se sau, from 'he conimenccmene
ne hHu pech ANXIOUS 10 thT9w no lmpedment IN
the way Gi .he Mars'ai, ilG knew lhe oelrato'
ana pecullar uustes ne iau tlAeh upon hmser IN
accepting .ie once &C., II ln&Yeo s GIres Una. snGu,n
nai be eXertiSed oy any InleeI CHRISTIAN or owls
Ieu. bu! y "it i"tS1ai m "eqHiosGe II, ooeulsnee
oi tle uec'sloh Vi lhe NOulu' he Will pe hpsoNeo
from I harlh' ,,.-..c r. ~,
suppose the NarShal lntcfieres' lie is sul9ect-
10 an acuoh l9F iaIsS l'npf, ,sohmeht ana ne com
mitS an assault anu battery, cqhteh'p' IN me
presence "i nn IG GOo ,,o nc , m'uiesees gus ~ oss
Mr. u. can only nslllute cl!ll sur. ana there is