Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-02-09
THE CINCINNATI SLAVE CASE AND THE
LEGISLATURE.

On the 30th ut Mr.. Brown of Portage county
introduced into the Senate the following preamble
and resolutions
WHEREAS We have authentic information that
certain quiet, peaceable persona in the city of Gin
cinnatl, county of Hamilton and State of Ohio,
guilty of no offence known to our laws, were, on
Monday last attacked by one Ellis, and n large
body of assistants, citizens of said county, under
tho lead of Archibald X. Gaines, and q Major Muir
ply, of Kentucky:
AND WHEREAS, one of the party thus assaulted
finding Ellis and his assistants about to gain a
victory over a weak mother and her four infant
children, and, in order to save those children from
q life every moment of which was to be infinitely
worse than death, with a mothers devotion to her
offspring, took the life of her youngest chIld, and
sought with her own hands to take the life, also OF
her three remaining children
RcSolred, That the Judiciary committee be re-
quested to report a bill to prevent the recurrence
of such scenes in our State, and further to prevent
the wicked, depfaved and abandoned from partici-
patIng in them.
The debate on the resolution occupied the
greater part of the day, after which the whole
was adopted. The resolution being amended SO as
to Enquire whether any legislation is possible, to
prevent such scenes, not inconsistent with the pro-
visions of the Constitution of the United States,
md to report by bill or otherwise"
A very important enquiry and one which we are
glad TO see a Senatorial committee enter upon.
Mr. Brace the author of the amendment thought
the resolution contemplated something which the
Legislature could not do. lie had nothing to say
in defence of slavery, but he considered the pro-
visions of the Constitution still binding, and they
made it obligatory upon us to surrender fugitives
from slavery.
Mr.. Brown advocated his resolution and Judge
Mathews of Cincinnati opposed them with spirit.
Mr.. Heaton of Prebble county denounced slave
catching in severeVterms and was not at all COM
plimentary to the Cincinnatians.
Mr.. Kelly of Franklin did not believe the Con-
stitution of the United States conferred any power
upon Congress which enabled ii to compel any man
to aid in returning fugitive slaves to their owners.
And if the Supreme Court of the United States
should decide that Congress possessed such power,
heshould still refuse to assist the slave owner to re-
capture his slaves. lie should pay the fine and
submit to the penalties which such refusal might
subject him to, and when these became too griev-
GUS to be borne, much as he loved his home and
his State. ne should exile himself from it forever,
rather than have anything to do with this business.
He said these poor f~ugitives from bondage, had the
right to defend themselves against their pursuing
owners, and to take their lives if it became neces-
sary to do so to preserve their own freedom. In
killing their pursuers they would do no more than
he or any other Senator would do. If their case
was his own he would kill his pursuers with as
little hesitation as he would kill a rattle snake or
wild beast, and he would never help to convict one
of these fugitives from slavery who in his efforts
to save himself from recapture should kill his
master.
Mr.. Kelly's remarks created quite a sensation,
as they were stronger than were expected from that
Senator. He indicated a desire to do nothing
which was not fully warranted by the c~onstitu-
ton.