Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-08
FUGITIVE SLAVE CAsE-sURRENDER OF
THE SLAVES.
COMMISSIONERS DECISION.


At half-past one O'CLOCK P. NJ. Feb &c, Cen:
missioner Pendery opened his Court in the Z. s..
| Court Rooms. (Judge Leavitt giving way) and
gave his decision. He commenced by saying:
Previous to the disposition Of the cases now be-
1 fore us, we shall pass upon the motion: "That We
discharge Margaret Garner, Simon Garner senior.
Simon Garner, Junior. and Mary Garner from the
custody of the U. S. Marsha and deliver them in
to the possession of said Sheriff" This motion is
based upon an indictment found by the Grand Ju-
| ry of Hamilton county, Ohio charging them with
the crime of murder in the First Degree, and co.
pas issued upon said indictment for their arrest
We md no law TO warrant as in making such
order and therefore overrule the motion
lie then proceeded to consider the claim Of Mar
shall to Simon Garner, senior Simon Gnrner iu-
niur and Mary Garner.
On the 2Sth of january, 1856, Archibald K
ONlnes, a citizen of Boone county, and State of
hentucky, made an affidavit, etc., that one negro
man named Simon Garner Senior aged about SIS
years; one negro man named Simon Garner Ju-
NOR, aged about 70 years; and negro w,map
named Mary Garner, aged about so years; who owe
labor and service to james Marshall, for life un-
der the laws Of Kentucky, escaped from .he State
/ Oi Kentucky.
The testimony for the claimant shows that these
persons are held by the said James Marshal as
slaves for life under the laws of Kentucky, that
the above amed persons the identical ones de-
ScriGed in the claimants affidavit and that they
escaped on the night Of the 2Sth day of January
I'INi rum e'tl county ana otltO INTO the Southern
District of Ohio, where the United States Marshal
made the arrest.
The testimony for the defense is, in substance
that Simon Garner, Junior,and Mary Garner, have
both been in Ohio previous to their escape with
the claimants consent; but no proof of that kind
is offered as to Simon Garner senior.
These are the principal facts elected in the in.
vestgaticrr Of this case.
The only question which we propose to discuss
IN this case, is docs the fact Of the temporary
VISIT to Ohio of Simon Garner, junior, and Mary
Garner, with the consent of their master prior to-
their escape, affects the rights of the claimant p"
Or, in other words, James Marshal having permit
ted these persons to come into Ohio, and they havI
ing Voluntarily returned into his servive is thei-
relation master and slave changed
! Upon what principle, then, are we to find young
Simon and Mary Garner to be free, when in Ohio
10y the consent of their master2 Is ii in the cnuss
Of our State Constitution which declares tbere
shall be no Slavery in this State, nor Involuntary
serytude. except for the punishment of crinef
Article lst Section 9th.
The most recent case bearing upon this point is
thdt of Strnder ct. nj. VS.. Graham, b. Munroe
II3. The facts in this case were; Strader & Cor.
man were the owners of the steamboat Pike, snd
had permitted three slaves Of Graham TO ceIne on
their boat from Louisville to Cincinnati, xhencs
they escaped into Canada. The defense made by
Strader &GOrman was that thess negroes were muS
scians, and allowed to ell shout by The complains.
ant who gave them written consent to come toOhio
ana lnht liley renamed mere Tor long tltie, then
returned into the State of Kentucky, into ths ser
vice Of their master. and, therefore that they were
free. Judge Marshall, in delivering the opinion
Of the C6urt, held.
LIST. That master residing in Kentacky and
taking bis slave with him to Ohio. fur \ temporary
purpose is not to be understood as renouncng his
right to bis slave, and on return of the slave to
Kentucky he cannot, on that ground, assert right
to freedom.
,. The owner Of a slave who resides in Kentucky,
who permits his slave to go to Ohio in charge of an
agent for temporary purpose. does not forfeit his
right Of property in such slave"
The case was afterwards removed to the Su-
creme Court OF the United States by a writ of err
rcr, and Chief Justice Taney delivered the opinion
Of the Court, reported in 10 IIowards Supteme'
Court Req RS %. lie says: Much Of the argus
ment on the part of the plaintiffs in has been
offered for the purpose of showing that the jusie.
ment Of the State Court was srronsous in deciding;
that these negroes were slaves, and it is insisted
that their previous employment in Ohio had
made them free when they re,arhed into Ken
tucky."
Although the Chief Justics decided that this vas
not the question before him, he states: "That the
condition of the negroes as to freedom or slavery
after their return depended altogether upon the
laws Of Kentucky, and could not be influenced By
the laws Of Ohio; that it was exclusively IN she
power Of Kentucky to determine foi itsslf nh stbss