New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-06
THE CRlHJEAL CHI 1166s AGAINST TIE
,,e8ROgs.
ErTrRN or THE eFFRIFF.

Ey9Hs
The Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Cox, esq, dew
the attention Of Jsdge Carter yesterday afternoon 70
the return of the Sheriff in the matter OF the fsnr
necroes, Margaret, Mary, Simon and Robert Garner,
indicted for the murder OF the negro ctma. NJ
the writ commanding him TO produce the bodies
of these persons, and the following return OF the
Sheriff "H.HILIoN CouSrr, feO -.
"The withiD-naroed defendants, Margaret Garner,
alias Peggy Garner, Simon Garner, senior, hobert
Garner. sas simon Gerer, junior, and Mary Garner,
vere discharged from my custody on the 2slh h- oy
Humphrey II. Lesvitt, Judge OF the Cnted H'aVts
District Court fct the southern Dslct OF On, C IN
dated Feb 25. 1856 and TO me directed, which WIT
Of babeas corpus il hereto attached also the eerti
cate Of ssid Judge dischargng said prisoners ron M
custody. We .. ~, Co,sn,v Ono,
Aacr the decision Of Judge Leavitt, he THE Prose-
outing Attorney issued another cdp'ds TO when the
sheriff returned that be could not ma lhe Par.lesi
Judge Carter remarked that he bad not the least
HESITATION IN saving that il was competent for the
Sheriff of this County, acting on the order OF the Court
In The issupQ Of the c0pids TO have arrested these DE-
SnJsns no matter what NAV have been their position
In reference 10 any other Court in the land. Under
Government ike this there Is no refuge for crime, ana
the perpetrator can occupy no position winch woud
render him irresponsible to the laws which regulate The
pupib ment Of crime. II therefore competent Tor
The Sheriff 10 arrest the parties though they were o.
fore the United States Court on tral as to whe 9er
they were fugtives from Justice. H. struck the NINA
of tbis Court that after the issuing Of the r1P0s oy
tbe STATE Count il was the duty of the United Sses
Court in all propriety, and even under the rules o.
comfy forthwith 10 have terminated their pro"ee l.
ings so far as the question OF the negroes Delhs
fuoitives from justice concerned, AMI hama theh
over 10 answer for the crime committed in the
mean time. To hold any other doctrine would be .
say that fugitive from labor were irresponsible or
crime Tbis would b. entirely outrageous TO say the
least of IT, The Sheriff was, undoubtedly, o"uhi 10
obcv the writ Of k0Jcas corpus Issued ny the Chte
Sfaies Court; he did So. But the United States Judge
in lis exceeding wisdom decided that the question OF
the negroes being fngitives was paramount TO the
cLaro, of murder: and BY the decision of that COuu
The Sheriff obliged 10 deliver the custody OF the
parties TO the Marshal Of the United States with THIS
action of the Sheriff no fault could be found, but otter
he did that he might have served another caPos on
the parties before they reached the limits OF the boun
darv Of our State; though probably, the remarkable
expedition with which they were buried OIL 10 the
boundary line Of another State did not give him time
10 inform himself as to his duty. Under the cTcun-
stance that the defendants now without the lurs
dicton Of the State the Court would suggest to ~
Prosecuting Attorney that he had better get requi'
ton from the Governor Of Ohio.
NJ Cox said he had sent to the Governor a state
ment OF the fa"s, with copy OF the iqdctmen'' mat
he might take such notinn he thought proper.
Judge IIOadiey, in relation 80 the remark of the
Court upon the subject Of another copt said that lie
had apIled to Judge Loavitt TO receive supple
mental return, setting mp the fact that AFTER the os
pal return was fled the Commissioner had proceeded
TO decide the ease and grant his certificate, and that
The claimants had received it. In the application 10
receive the amended return II shown an affidavit
Ind been made to he Marshal under the ninth scctlo
Of fine Fugitive Slave law, and he urged TO the United
States Judge that this changed the state of facts and
rendered il controversy between the private night OF
the master and the right of the state, but Judge -.
refused 10 receive the supplemental return, though his
decision covered the proposition therein. III new
csnies therefore had been Issued il would have been
followed by another order OF the same Kind. Here the
subject ended.