Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-15
LATE PROCEEDINGS IN REGARD TO THE
FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE.

Judge Burgoyne, of Cincinnati who let the three
children of Margaret Garner slip from his court
into the hands CT the pious Archibald X. Gaines,
whilst he was deliberatinL whether or no to emar-
cipate them, has been engaged in hearing argu-
monts Tor and against the course of the Marshal in
the case. In the first place the marshal refused
to make any return. But finally to avoid the
difficulty he might incur by such contempt of court,
he backed out Of that position and returned ia
substance as his reason for not obeying the writ
that At the time it was served upon him the held
the children by virtue Of his Office, by authority of
the fugitive law-and that he has since removed
them by virtue of Commissioner Pendcry's certif-
cate that they are the slaves Of Gaines, and has
delivered them TO him in kentucky according to
the provisions of the law Of the United States
aud the Constitution
"Yoar respondent, therefore, states that said
parties are no longer under his custody nor with
IN his control, and he is unable 20 produce them
in accordance to the commands Of the within writ;
and that it may not he thought he parted with their
custody before writing this return in order to avoid
bringing them before This Court, he further states
that, acting under the obligations of his cath Of
%ofhce, and to obedience to the laws Of the United
States, be would not at any time whilst they were
III Ao w us ulOTtStlu, Inu after nc WIS served
with the writ, have felt authorized to produce their
bodies before this Court as required therein, but
respectfully Cenies the jurisdiction of this Court
to compel him to do so.
II. II. ROBINSON"
MIR. Jolliffe made a lengthy argument contend
ing that the returns did not furnish any sufficient
reason for disobeying the command of the writ,
namely, that he should bring the parties before the
Court. lie went over the argument on the cox sti-
tutlOnnI nupSiInp N ppU yard m thn rvonf e ,n,rnr
in the United States Commissioner Pendcry,
and the want Of authority in Congress to delegate
any power tc him to act IN cases Of this kind. lie
urged that the first amendment to the Constitution
was violated by tho Fugitive SlaveLaw and conten-
ded for them on the principles Of the "higher law"
by reference to the Scripture, &c, and on general
principles of right and justice that it was un
just and Ubiquitous, and that the Court was not
bound to recognize any proceedings under it,
But for the acts Of 1850 and 1888 the negro would
be as free here as if he had prosecuted his journey
to Canada. Our flag would protect him as FULLY
as the lion flag of England protects him; and he
submitted tho great question that these acts being
unconstitutional and void. the moment the Fugitive
crosses over the soil Of Ohio, no earthly power can
drag him back again TO the condition Of slavery
from which he escaped, and instead of going to
Canada it would be sufficient he should reach our
coast.
Counsel read a number of sections Of the statutes
of Ohio on the subject Of habeas corpus.
Mr.. Gitchcll, on the same side, then followed
celebrating upon the same points. He urged that
the return showed that the Marshal took these ne
gro children under a VOID decision and a void OIL.
Der, and that the claim set up that that custody
~deprives this Court of the privileges of trying the
right by which he holds these people could not be
tolerated. Among the authorities cited by Mr.. G.,
he referred to the Rosetta case decided by Judge
Parker.
Mr.. Headington, on the part of the Marshal, next
addressed the Court. lie remarked that he had
waived a technical objection, which must have
terminated this proceeding, from the simple motive
that he did not wish to place the Marshall in a posi-
ton of being. even in appearance, in contempt of
this Court. He then surveyed the extensive field
of discussion opened up on the other side, and be-
ginning at the sections of the Statutes Of Ohio, re-
ierred to by Mr.. Jollitfe, contended that the answer
Of the Marsha! fully came up to all the require
ments OF section II, page 81, of Swan; and that if
the return was insufficient, it must be in point of
substance, and not from want of a compliance with
the form Of the statute. The constitutional argu-
ment opened by the other counsel was then touched
upon, Mr.. Headington remarkiDg that to his q p
prehension it had been diffused over SO broad an
extent it would not hang together, aud declining 10
travel himself into the indefinite regions Of the
'higher law" as he conceived when he got there
they should have nothing to guide them. To
say that "higher law" overrides the Constitution
and the other laws which come in contact with il,
was to say that every man was his own judge as 10
what that law is, and that he might set up his
own opinion in opposition to tho law and the
Courts, and thereby abolish all law. Counter au-
thorities were cited. and in relation to the Rosetta
case, 10 which the Court had been asked to re-
instate the decision of Judge Parker, he observed
that that case could scarcely lie relied on as au-
thority by the counsel, as the decision of Judg &c
Mclean might at least set off the opinion Of Judge
Parker. The return itself he commended was evi-
dence that Mr.Pendery was an United States Com
missioner. If the fact were disputed the proper
coure to pursue would have been to traverse the
return, and then Mr.. Pendery might be called on to
testify and produce his commission.
The next proposition argued, was that this
Court had no right to interfere in any way with
the exercise of authority by an officer Of the United
States under the acts of Congress. and the Consti.
tut on of the United States; and that although the
State of Ohio has 0 sovereign power so far as her
Constitution gives il, and it is not taken away BY
the Constitution Of the United States, it has no right
whatever 10 trerch on the ezerrise Of nd authority