Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-01
son Of tho claimant Of the negro men.l for per.

jury.
The Commissioner and The sheriff have both
manifested decided purpose if possible to avoid
collision in regard to the custody Of the persons.
For this purpose the Sheriff delayed exercising
his light Of custody Of the slaves and made al
agreement with the Commissioner that the per.
sons should not be removed from Jail not even in
in case of his, the Commissioners decision. The
Commissioner however terminated this agreement
last week by a notice to the sheriff that he should
remove them from Jail. Hence it became necessa.
ry for the sheriff to act and he made return to the
court as reported below. We copy the Gazottes
account of the proceedings before the Court Of
Commos pleas.
Indictment against the Negroes for Murder-Re-
turn Of tie Sheriff to The Court Of Cannon Pleas.
In response to the capias issued by she Sheriff
for the arrest Of Margaret Garner, Simon Garner,
senior, Simon Garner, Junior, and Mary Garner
charged with the murder Of the child of Margaret
Garner, one Of the defendants, the Sheriff presen-
ted the following as his return yesterday afternoon
before Judge Carter;
February 90, 1861 found the within named
persons, defendants, named in this writ, confined
in the Jail Of Hamilton county, where they were
put by George S. Bennett, Esq, a United States
Marshal for the Southern District Of Ohio, who
holds them by virtue of a writ officially issued by
j. l.. Pendery, Esq, a United States Commission
er for the Southern District of Ohio, and do not
feel authorized under this writ to take them from
his custody. &c. BRASHEARS,
Sheriff, Hamilton Co."
Mr.. Cox, the States attorney; asked that the
Sheriff be ordered to amend his return by saying
that he holds defendants in custody under the ca
pias. The case involved questions of great impor-
lance to the interests Of the people of this State,
and the consid ~srations upon which he pressed this
motion were:
l. The prisoners are in custody Of the Sheriff.
They arc under an indictment for murder, upon
which a capias has been issued and is now in the
hands of the Sheriff, and they are in the Jail OF
this county, n place over which the Sheriff has full
control and entire charge Of all persons by law
confined therein. (Curwen Statute, 674.)
2. The United States Marshal, by placing these
parties in the Jail Of this county, neither the Sher-
if nor the Tailor being sworn Deputy United States
Marshal, has parted with the custody Of them, and
the only authority 10y which the Sheriff keeps
them in Jail is under his capias.
3. There is no law directing or even permiFiag
Il Sheriff to place a fugitive slave in any Jail in the
State of Ohio.
The fugitive slave law gives authority to the
owner of Il fugitive slave, or his agent or attorney
to arrest, riM or without process, and the Mar
shall is authorized to appoint deputies and summon
such assistance as may be necessary to serve his
process and to take the fugitive before competent
authority; but nowhere in the act is the fugitive
treated as a prisoner of tie United States for an
oiiense committed against her laws, but simply as
a party whose labor is Claimed by another.
The only use to which a Jail in this State can
be applied is for the confinement of those who have
violated some of the laws OF this State, or prison
ers who shall be committed for 'aHy oGense by the
authority Of the United States, and then such pris-
oners shall be supported during their confinement
in Jail at the expense of the United States."-
Swans Statute, last edition, page 486, also 1923
a.
In neither of these classes does n fugitive slave
fall. He certainly violates no law Of this State
by coming within her territory. Does he violate
any law of the United States? Most certainly
not, The Fugitive slave Law does notdeclare him
IL criminal-docs not subject him to any punish
ment for escaping from his master, nor does II
make the United States liable for any expenses in
Cured in keeping the fugitive in custody; on the
contrary, it expressly provides that the Marshals,
Deputies, the Commissioners, and all expenses OF
keeping the fugitive in custody and providing him
with food and lodging, and detention, and until
The final determination of the commissioner shall
be paid by the claimant or his attorney.
The Court did not recognise the return put in
by the sheriff as any return at all.
Mr.. Mills said from present appearances there
was to be a grand scramble for the prisoners, and
if the city could be saved from riot or bloodshed
by the action or advance of the Court it was desi-
raDie it should be given.
The Court replied that it could not advise the
Sheriff. Only two returns can be made by the
sheriff in this case. Ono that he has not the per-
sons in custody, the other that he has. All the
Court can say is, the Sheriff has the law to act up
on. If he does not act according to that, he is
amenable.
Mr.. Cox-I advise the sheriff to return that he
has the prisoner in custody. / ask the court to
rule that he make a return on the capias this NOR
hing.
Court cannot do that, the sheriff is bound by
the law and is obliged to obey it.
Mr.. Cox-The writ is in his hands and has been
since last month, and l think it should be return
ed.
The Sheriff subsequently made return that he
had the parties in custody.
THE FUGITIVES SURRENDERED.
just as we are going to press we learn that Com