New-York daily tribune., 1856-04-23
THE CINCINNATI SLAVE CASE.

The case of the Cincinnati fugitives, which not
long since attracted 50 much attention, Is not yet
finally laid upon the shelf. proceedings grow
ing out of it are now on foot IN Cincinnati The
first is of IN entirely novel character. being no
other than demur on the part Of the United
States to pay ing and scrutiny into, the little
bill which has been presented at Washington for
services, or pretended services, rendered 10 the
United States in the matter OF that rendition.
Hitherto this sort Of bills. even 10 much heavier
al QUIT have been paid without hesitation or
inquiry, the Administration making sort of osten-
taton Of its total regardlessness OF expense when
the Fugitive Slave law was 10 be carried out.
What are few dollars, more or less compared
with the salvation of the Union , How 1t hap
pentd that the very moderate demand presented
10 the treasury in this case Of only from thirty TO
forty thousand dollars, should have excited any
suspicious il ia difficult TO tell. Moderate il
must be considered, compared with the expenses
incurred in the average Of such aud suppose
there had been little cheating-much must be
psrdoned to the spirit of save-catching, by which
persons are induced TO engage in such services.
Whist are few thousand dollars, more or less
compared with the danger of putting obstacles in
the wsy of the execution of the Fugitive Slave
sct
These obvious considerations failed however
we know not why. to draw out the money, and in
stead OF paving the bill the Treasury Department
dispatched an agent TO Cincinnati TO investigate
tie subject. The result Of that investigation, so
far as il has become public vii be found in letter
from cur Cincinnati correspondent. Mr. Pendery,
the Commissioner, was good deal spplauded,
While the rendition proceedings We're pending be-
fore hin, for the dtliberation with which he con
Quoted matters. for his readiness 10 grant time
ior the patience with which be listened 10 the az
sumen,s Of counsel, and the ample delay which
Le allowed himself before coming 70 decision. Il
must be confessed however, that the facts deve-
oted il the pending examination have On ugly look
80 though sll this delay not much due 20 the
ri-hts Of tie fugitive Prospecting which il s prob
abe that NJ. ?, ndery had made up his mind be-
fore he Issued the warrant az 70 = benevolent de-
size q tie part Of the Commissi0ner 10 sforl the
Deputy Msrshals sn opportunity 70 rqn up com
fortsble bill. For that there vas the more oc-
ca,iou, ss il seems 10 have been part Of the az
i -FL4rLt tLaL tLt ~A'.r u LLrI If1prtt4'r
til. should By 10 mean. 20 into the pockets
of TIE Deputies. On TIE contrary, large part
Of ttess claim. appear. TO have been bo1gh, up at
.s1vy di.couAt, such as would have given hand
soue p,oh, 70 the purchAsers lad %; payment Of
The b.u rendered been 20 u1accogutably refused
VIII counec.ion there Was between these pur-
chafe., ths appointment Of wholly Unnecessary
lumber of Depuiy Mar,t.ls, and the time taken
b Co1rai..iODer Pendsy . com 70 4 decision
siy point. 10; ye; fully el9c.dA.ed.
N.s.uA.le the Mar,h1l "a IN t,oub.s On one other
,etre twill b. fecoleeted that Judge B1rgoyne
q ,le Probate Court i.sued writ Of habeas cor
tus re4uf.iz tie Mar.hAl - bring he three slaye
n. ..,d,en beore LIN. u ibs wit the Mar.hAl Re-
| t.ru,9 Tat h. hsld The children Under The pro-
rs.Gnzs "a rsrd.ti0n wtich b. ~ Up ss yuifci~nt
f~s.l. ff -; producing tAeif Dcdie,. The Judge,
/ 49, argr.ruslt drc3-d that this feturn va. IL
sTrsst srd ord.fed %, bodies 20 BE- produced
% . csT1ia day; bit before TIA, day the Mar
| "a. za,r ten 1p - the c-Airnslt. Judge
D.tycynr has lAisly committed the Marshal
% Ia .o, coai~mp' n ~; ob@y.ng be wit.
| Tle Aafsha h,s sus4 O1t hsbsas corpus before
| Ia p ,a- Ltl;el S,s;.s Ua,re. judge claim