New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-01


TO prevent her mistress from bringing her BACK 10 her
place Of residence and continuing TO hold her as before
her service; and that although the gif hsd oeeh
STAYING for time in France, in the service OF her
mistress yet in contemplation oil Ia" sue SUI connu"u
an inhabii ant of Louisiana. -
To return TO the question: When brought within
the State of Ohio for temporary purpose by the con-
cent az the master did they become free In cOnse-
onence Of the clause of the Constitution Of Ohio,
which declares "There shall be no Slavery or inv0-
"untary servitude within her limits ?" We think not;
the true effect of that clause being to prevent Slavery
"a an institution within her limits rather than 10 exc
cute the act of manumission upon foreign slaves TEN
porsriy upon our coil with the masters consent
Surprising that Ohio has the right under her Constr
tuition 20 pass laws making the slave free the moment
he stands upon Ohio soil by the consent OF the master
IL sufficient for the purpose of this case that az he
fine Mary Garner and Simon Garner were Ia the
State of Ohio az alleged, there was no law declaring
that the relations they held 10 their master a. slaves
were dissolved and at an end. -
1ossble that the would have invoked the AID OF
te0al process compel their return III vain. The Fed
raj Corrts could not have remanded them 10 the
fody and control Of their MASTER because they were
present in Ohio by act Of the MASTER and not az fng
lives who had escaped into Ohio. The Constitution
and laws of the United States, al-pOwerfu as they
are and trust always will be, in National and inner
State Affairs were imperative when, by the act
Of the parties, the whole case was brought WITHIN the
jurisdiction and disposal Of the STATE OF Ohio.
The aid of legal process from Ono Courts could not
have been obtained for Ohio has enacted laws for
the control and management of foreign slaves WHILE
for the purpose Of soourn or transit temporarily with
in her borders.
With tsis state Of the law, slaves asserting their
Freedom become practically free. The master has no
longer the right Of violent subsection to his command
but the State of Ohio extends TO both parties the pro-
lection Of equal laws.
But this possible freedom, this freedom in p0sse
rather than in esse something which the law Of Ohio
rather protects than creates. That the slave brought
by bis master into Ohio, and refusing to return,
&c annx fnn la 1fG nTt Tho
proposition that Slavery is creature of law and
cannot maintain ell where the laws do not regulate
IL and provide for its continuance.
But the slave having been brought to Ohio by the
master returns with him voluntarily 10 the State Of
Kentucky, what then is the relation between them
While in Ohio the Ohio courts could have determined
that for the whole matter was properly within her
control The act Of the parties again changed the
Jurisdiction and the whole matter rested again within
the control of the State of Kentucky.
The claim upon the State Of Ohio for protection
against yioleno abduction was not made. The right
10 be FREQ was waived. In coming TO Ohio the mas
fer voluntarily abandoned his legal power his
rlave, and in returning voluntarily the slave has
equally abandoned his claim 10 freedom.
Upon the return Of slaves voluntarily to Kentucky
with their MASTER their relations become confirmed by
1be laws and jurisdiction Of that State, and with that
settlement of the question the Supreme Court of the
United States has declined to interfere. The law,
thus determined have already stated in the earlier
part Of our opinion.
With reference to the particular case before u.s. We,
Therefore under the necessity of holding that these
defendants Mary Garner and Simon Garner, jr., were
legally in slavery at the time of their escape on the
goth of January, 1886.
We have given those cases which in our opinion are
The leading OpOn this subject, aud which throw
light upon the issues to be met in the case They
the landmarks by which We have been guided in our
decision.
The 1t and last question TO be settled arises under
che constitutional provision for the rendition of fugi
lives from labor under the Fugitive Slave Law, and
the facts proved in the render duty clear
and unmistakable one.
The question is not one of humanity that called
rpon TO decide. The laws of Kentucky and OF the
United States make it question of property Ii is not
question of feeling ~ b. decided by the chance cur
rent of my sympatbies. There are to pc adiudicated
fhe rights of institution agreed TO in the forma
zion Of our Government TO make it both municipal
and federal in its character. II s the essence of the
institution that the slave does not possess equal rights
with the freeman. The abstract rights to fe, liberty
end pro- perry in his case replaced by statutes pro-
~idng expressly for bis condition. 1t has been our
duty as Court to listen with attention, and, we
trust with courtesy to all those arguments which have
urged the decision of this question upon moral rather
than legal grounds. We conceive that our highest
moral obligation in this il to administer Impair
italy the plain provisions of the law.
However painful the result may be 10 the defendants
in this case, il il my duty to deliver themSimon Gar
ner sr Simon Garner r, and Mary Garner, fugitives
from servicento the custody of the claimant, james
Marshall
He then proceeded TO consider the claim of Gaines
10 Margaret alias Peggy Garner, mulato womsn;
Ten. a negro boy; sam, mulatto boy, and Sally, an
infant girl. claimed by Archibald H. Gaines OF Boone
County Ky a. fugtves from service aud labor in the
State of Kentucky.
In tbir case it is claimed by the defense that Peggy,
when about six years old, permitted by her pre-
vious master TO to the State of Ohio and upon
that fact they claim that she is entitled to her freedoms
aud that being free at that time and her children be-
ing born since, they also entitled to freedom.
These facts present for our consideration the same
question which was raised in the of Marshall
Simon Garner ct al, and the decision which we have
lust announced applies equally in this case.
We shall therefore make the order that the parties
named, to wit: Peggy, Tom, Sam, and Slila, be de-
Ivered into the custody and possession of the claim
amt Archibald h. Gaines.