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

free 10 all intents and purposes. lie denied that
the case came under the provision of the Constitu-
lion referred to by claimants counsel.
The Courtsaid that he did not recognize the
nets of another Court, and asked counsel to fur.
nish him with authorities to aid him in the in
quiry.
and female, colUred and white persons. all OF
whom manifested much interest as tho case pro-
gressed.
After the testimony Of several witnesses;
MIR. Wolf, of Louisville, then commenced the
argument for the claimant, by stating first that Dir.
Miller, as an agent for MIR. Dennison, transcribed
his authority when he left the Ohio river. and
passed through the State Of Ohio. Second that
The institution Of slavery is recognized by the con-
stitution of the United States, Ohio being q com-
ponent part that the constitution provides that
ii Il slave escape from q Slave State to free State
said slave shall he delivered to the State from
which he or she escaped. Mr.. Wolf contender
that Rosetta was still the property of Mr.. Dem
nison. lie then dwelt upon the proposition. Has
there been any escape9 defining at length BY
what he understood by escape of q slave. Mr.
w. claimed that comfy due from one State ~
another, required the delivering up of property
whether there was any constitutional provisions or
not. l cannot over estimate the Importance Of
this case as vital to the interests of the union Of
these States. The question is, shall the owner OF
n slave-a right guaranteed to him by the consti-
tuition and laws Of his own State and tho c%onstitu.
tlDU vi Ii INV DthtNVtb " a. tp GhNHSshJ ~ W
wrested from him, and that too by fanatics, who
pretend to be lovers Of freedom, but who. are in
cendiaries in the temple of libertyi He contend.
ed that the moment she left the Ohio river, and
tread on Ohio soil. she had escaped from her
owner, and was q fugitive.
Mr.. Wolf ccntended that q citizen Of Kentucky
had. under tho provisions of the Constitution, .
right to transport his slaves through Ohio over her
highways, whether they be t%urnpikes or railroads.
under the general provision thereof, which Says,
1.-The citizens Of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the sew
eral States" and under that which empowers
Congress ito regulate commerce in the several
States"
He contended that the fundamental law Of Ohio
that there shall be no slavery in this Stste," did
not interfere with the Fugitive Slave Law. Tho
right of property does not cease to attach to the
owner in a foreign country, how much less in tho
neighboring State of Ohio, where the property Of
n Kentuckian is fond to bef lie contended for
! the right of passage--the privilege of transit.
lie prophesied that there would be bloody
J times hereabouts, when the fanaticism prevalent
, on this side Of the Ohio had proceeded a few steps
farther. The time was approaching when, If these
outrages on the rights of Kentucky were persisted
in, scenes would be enacted that the eye of hu.
mainly would be panied to gaze upon. Kentucky
, asks comfy of her neighbors she was character
lied for her mildness, for her earnestness and hui
mainly there the law shows more tenderness 70
! slaves than here is shown between whites. Ho
Q cited Ky. Reports, 2 A. X. Marshal 712 l472]Ran-
kin VS.. lydia. When n slnee of Mrs. Rankin
came to Indiana with the family, resided a while.
afterwards went back to Kentucky, and claimed
by the family as n slave, but the Court there de-
: clared her free. lie referred to the case where
; Jacob Strader had to pay $1,000 damages for
: slaves escaped on her mail boat, of which he was
5 the owner.
To constitute an escape, he did not deem it NEG
essary .hat the girl should have run of-apy re-
moval from the control of the master without his
asstht was escape.
lie examined the evidence of Mr.. Van Slyke-
| expect he is an abolitionist. His philanthra-
= g gifY. ''''s'''' gives M" q 'e'''"s towards tho
y But no voluntary REIMBURSEMENT of his rights To-
G the girl gives her her freedom. BY Kentucky
d statute it must be done by will or deed. Enamel.
t patton must be done where slavery exists in
n this case it could have no efficacy exc ept in Ken.
e lucky.
Mr.. Wolf, in n pcroration of some eloquehee,
}, appealed to the Court to respect the rights of y
worthy man and kind master. lie i~nveighed
i against the ilberality of ultra fanaticism, and their
infdelity to their views of the equality Of the
colored people. in not admitting them to the polls
i and to social rights. lie said he hoped his appeal
would not he in vain.
n Mr.. Flamen Bell (partner of Senator chasc)
IT made an excellent speech.
e We couli like to give the language and illus.
o trations of the speaker, if We had room. but
must content ourselves with the statement If his
points:
y l. lnere was no escape from hentucky into Ohi0s
or such an escape as is contemplated by tho Con.
stitution of the United States and the Fugitive
u Slave act.
2. That if she had so escaped, the subsequent
acts and conduct Of DennisOn amount to q manu-
mission.
lie 8. There is no question of comfy arising between
the States-that has been settled by the Court
at of the United States.
of 4. The decision of the Probate Court Of Franklin
ne county is still. in full force, and is res adyuneala,
r. and cannot be co!laterally impeached.
r. rutherford B. Hays, Esq. also appeared for the
I'd girl, Rosetta. lie commended that the proof showed
that an unrestricted liberty WINS given by Mr.. D.
to to take the girl to Val if he brought her into Ohio
it was at the risk of the principal-if one slave
he can pass through Ohio, gnngs of forty in number
ty may do so. 1t has been considered by slave-hold.
ers themselves that il they brought servants with
them to this State, it was when their affection for
their master rendered them Indifferent to the benz.
at fit conferred upon them by being on free soil. But
it has been proved that Mr.. D. assented formally
" to the girls decision, that having the election. she
preferred to be free, and he bid her farewell,
MS believing his control of her as master had termi.
us mated.
=, The want of faith in this reputed owner, giving
a simple, truthful girl, a choice to be free, and then
10 being reckless of his promise. d~espising his pledg-
st ed word, and suing out a writ she was q fugitive,
IF was worse then the most ultra fanaticism Of those
classed as Abolitionists.
The parol manumission he made of her is good
vi in Ohio, good in law and morals.-8th Humphrey
y. Reports.
A slave Court says that an net of manumissior
IN may be inferred from the FACTS and conduct Of the
master" The acts and conduct of Mr.. d. ct Co
lumbus, were implicitly and expressly to the lib
Grafton of Rosetta.
he The following was a proposition which be urged
il with happy illustration and eloquence.
II it does not appear from evidence that the al
legged slave is a fugitive, ''that is to say, has
escaped from the State where she was hold tc
service into q free State, the claimant of such nj
lodged slave is not entitled to q certificate from th,
90 Commissioner, authorizing him. to remove her "a
VI the State where service was due. He cited man,
~ cases in Courts in slave States.
T. He cited l. U. s. Statutes at Large 1874. SEQ. 8