The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-03-13
THE CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST THE
NEGROES.
Return of the Sheriff.
From the Cincinnati Gazette, March 1.

From the Cincinnati Gazette, March 1.
The Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Cox, Esq,
drew the attention of Judge Carter Yesterday
afternoon to the return of the Sheriff in the
matter of the four negroes, Margaret, Mary,
Simon, and Robert Garner, indicted for the
murder of the negro child. He read the writ
commanding him to produce the bodies of these
persons, and the following return of the Sheriff
"HAMILToN COUNTY, Feb. 20.
"The within-named defendants, Margaret
Garner, alias Peggy Garner, Simon Garner,
senior, Robert Garner alias Simon Garner,
junior, and Mary Garner, were discharged from
my custody on the 18th instant, by Humphrey
b. Leavitt, Judge of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under
writ of habeas corpus issued from said Court,
dated February rs, 1856, and to me directed,
which writ of habeas corpus is hereto attached ;
also the certificate of said Judge, discharging
said prisoners from my custody.
&C. BRAsHEARs, Sheriff.
Hamilton Comfy, Ohio"
After the decision of Judge Leavitt, he 1.-THE
Prosecuting Attorney issued another capias,
to which the Sheriff returned that he could not
find the parties.
Judge Carter remarked that he had not the
least hesitation in saying that it was competent
for the Sheriff of this county, acting on the Or
der of the Court in the issuing of the cdpids, to
have arrested these defendants, no matter what
may have been their position in reference to
any other court in the land. Under Govern
ment like this, there is no refuge for crime, and
the perpetrator can occupy no position which
would render him irresponsible to the laws
which regulate the punishment of crime. 1t
was therefore competent for the Sheriff to ar
rest the parties, though they were before the
United States Court on trial as to whether
they were fugitives from justice. 1t struck the
mind of this Court, that, after the issuing of the
cdpsGs by the State Court, it was the duty of
the United States Court, in all propriety, and
even under the rules of comfy, forthwith to
have terminated their proceedings, SO far as
the question of the negroes being fugitives
from justice was concerned, and hand them
over to answer for the crime committed in the
mean time. To hold any other doctrine would
be to say that fngitives from labor were ire
sponsible for crime. This would be entirely
outrageous, to say the least of it. The Sheriff
was, undoubtedly, bound to obey the writ of
babeas corpus issued by the United States
Court. He did so. But the United States
Judge, in his exceeding wisdom, decided that
the question of the negroes being fugitives was
paramount to the charge of murder; and by
the decision of that Court the Sheriff was
obliged to 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 after he did that, he might have served
another capios on the parties before they
reached the limits of the boundary of our
State though, probably, the remarkable expe.
ditlon with which they were hurried off to the
boundary line of another State did not give