Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-08

cd them was by a writ of habeas corpus. lie
claimed that they were not property, hut persons,
and as such were properly prisoners" and came
under the resolution of Congress and the Act Of
Assembly Of Ohio, which authorized to l. )
Marshal to use the county Jail for the confinement
of U. S. prisoners" 1t was all well enough &c
say that the right of property of an individual
must give way To the right of the State to punish
a criminal, but he saw no way in which 1t could
he done.
Judge IToodley, Counsel for the Sheriff, re
piled:
He cited cases to show that a Habeas Corpus al
subjiciendum did not lie from one Jurisdiction tt
anether-from that Of the General Government t.
that Of n State. lie considered international Law
aud its application to sovereign States. lie claim
ed the right of y State to punith the slave inhabi
tant n! anotherState as clearly MS to punish o whit,
citizen of another commonwealth, for even in thu
Southern States Slaves were regarded by the law
as sensible human beings-were punished Tor NJ
crimes that white men were punished for, and II
some States held even to a higher accountability
are punished for crimes which in white men were
winked at or overlooked.
lie also remarked that there was no other meant
Of reaching these criminnls-that If they were re
manded back to Kentucky, that no requisition wa,
applicable to them.
After citing "a large number of authorities in sup
port o. his positions, he closed his argument by
reading an editorial on this case from the NcwYorl
Jon7pot Of Commerce, which was repubiished in
the Gazede.
Mr.. Harrington replied. after which Judge
Levitt yielded the Bench to Commissioner Pendery
who then gave his decision on the case Of Marshall
and Gaines. 1t is unde rstood that Judge Leavitt
will give his decision on the Habeas Corpus this
morning at 9 o'clock.
nABEAs CORPUS BEFORE JUDGE BURGoYNE.
Judge Burgoyne of the Court of Common pleas,
also granted a writ Of Ilabeas Corpus for the
three children. 1t alleged the illegal detention by
the United States Marshal of the three negro chill
dren, Samuel, Thomas and Silla Garner. This was
on Wednesday afternoon. After some arguments
of counsel upon technical points,
Judge Burgoyne intimated that in view Of the
serious and important questions involved, he should
require some time to render a decision. lie init
mated, however, that a majority Of the Judges OF
the Supreme Court having passed on the c%Ohstitu-
tionality Of the Fugitive Slave Law, was no reason
why he should not take up the Constitution and
read it for himself, being sworn to support the
Constitution of the United States and the Consti.
tuition of the State of Ohio.
Mr.. Ketchum suggested that his honor was as
much bound in conscience to regard the decision
of the majority of the Judges Of the United States
Courts as the express provisions OF the Constitu-
ton it.eif.
Judge Burgoyne said that however the decisions
of the Judges of the United States Courts might
aid him in coming to a conclusion, where the otli-
cations Of his conscience were involved, he could
not screen himself behind q decision made by
somebody else.
Mr.. Jolife asked the Court to make a special
order that the children should not be taken out OF
the limits of the jurisdiction until the final decis.
ion of the case.
The Court-We ought not to allow the parties
to be in any worse condition than if the return had
been promptly made, and therefore shall enter W
the order. We shall probably decide the case Oh
Saturday.
eIrlvEs.
On the 28th, Judge Loavitt gave the following
decision on the Habeas Corpus case before him
r Er-parte, II. H.. Robinson, Marshal, etc., HaJea
' Corpus.
Without taking time to set forth at length tn
facts appearing in the petition for this Habea
Corpus, and the return made to it, may say, i
brief, that the question involved is, whether til
Marshal or the Sheriff Of Hamilton county i
rightfully entitled TO the custody of the four pei
sons named in these proceedings. AT the TIM
that this writ was sued out, a claim for these pei
sons, with others alleged to be fugitive Slaves, wa
pending and undetermined, before a COMMISSIONS
of this Court. In the progress OF the investig0
ton Of this claim, the Commissioner, for the sal
keeping of the alleged f%ugitiyes, had ordered ther
to he confined in the Jail Of Hamilton county, t
be brought before him from time to time, as h
might adjudge necessary. The Commissioner, o
the 2Sth of February, issued an order to the Maj
shall requiring him to produce the bodies of all tn
alleged tugitives (seven in number) in the morn
ing of the next day at 10 o'clock, to answer to hi
u final Indictment in the urpmISps. In pursuance {
this order, the Marshal made the attempt to e
the possession of the persons referred to, but tn
+ Sheriff refused to permit him to take them froi
the Jail, the four persons in reference to whol
the writ OF habeas issued. The return of the Ma
| shall sets forth as the, grounds of his refusal, thf
the Grand Jury Of Hamilton county having prev
7 Ously returned u bill Of indictment against thec
g four persons for the crime of murder in the fir
D degree, a writ OF capias was duly issued on III
5 10Th Of February. commanding him to take I'll
said persons into his custody, TO answer to sal
? charge; and that on the same day, pursuant to ii
command of said writ, Ire arrested them. they b
ing in the Jail Of Hamilton county, upon the o
9 der for their commitment by the Commissioner, {
p, before stated, and made a return of such arrest @
!, the writ of capias. And the Sheriff claims thi
b he is rightfully in the possession OF these person
n in virtue of these proceedings, and cannot sure
c der it to the Marshal on his claim.
The question presented on these facts is one
conflict between the Marshal and the Sheriff, as
the legal custody of these persons. 1t is insistC
by the counsel of the Marshal, that they were
his custody under lawful process from the Commi
y sioner, and that it was not competent for the She
if to arrest them, under the process of the Stat
while they were SO held under process issue
by authority of the laws of the United States
y On the other hand, it is claimed by the counsel f
the Sheriff, that the proceeding against them u
d der the Fugitive Slave Act, then pending, al
their commitment to the Jail of Hamilton count
4 did not shield them from arrest on a charge of
violation of the criminal law of the State Of Obi
In disposing of this question, l am free to co
fess, l have had some anxiety to find a legal has
on which ! could satisfactorily reach the concl
sion, that these ~fugitives could properly be held
custody under the process Of the State, notwit
so standing the fact of their being in the prior lee
custody of the Marshal. And my first imprC
sions were strongly in favor of the position, tn
as the claim of the owner in the proceeding und
N the fugitive slave act, was the mere assertion of
n civil right, it must be subordinate, and yield
the ripht of the State To assert and enforce