Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1856-03-15

IN the fdesislOn oil Judge Mclean in the Ra-
setta cass, it was expressly held under n similar
state OF facts that The party being in the custody of
United States officers under proceedings pending
before Il Commissioner the State Court had no right
interfere with that custody-no right to revise the
proceedings on II writ of error or habeas corpus, or
take them out Of the hands Of Tie United States
officer, to inquire whether the proceeding was rcgu
lar or the cause Of commitment su efficient. The de-
clslon Of Judge Leavitt was also relied upon, in
which 1t was decided that the authorities of the
State could not interfere with the custody by the
United States Marshal, under the Fug tive Slave
Law, even for the purpose Of holding the parties
subject to the laws Of Ohio, to punish them for the
crime OF murder. 1t was also urged, that the GER
tiicate given Ivy the commissioner could not be
called IN question c0llHterally in any other proceed.
ing and could only be contested Ivy direct removal
OF the question ON error to a higher Court, for the
purpose OF reversing the decision.
Judge Burgnyne said that on the bringing in Of
his return he had supposed The matter would have
oeeh disposed OF in a short time but the argu-
ihent having taken 50 wide n range, ard resulted
IN the examination Of so large n number of au-
.h9ri1es' some time must necessarily be required
10 look INTO and decide the grave and serious aues-
tions presented. If upon n full examination OF the
case II should appear the Marshal's return was
'nsuthcient, the next step in the case, following the
usual Practice, would 10 to issue n rule reauir.
ing hiin to show cause why he should hot be at
tached.
In the Criminal Court before Judge Carter, the
following proceedings were had, as we learn from
the Gazette of the eth:
rnE CRIMINAL CHARGE AGAINST TIE NEGROES
RETURN OF THE SHERIFF.
The Prosecuting Attorney, Joseph Cox, ESQ.,,
drew the attenti)n of Judge Carter yesterday after.
noon to return of the Sheriff in the matter OF the
four negroes, Margaret, Mary, Simon and Robert
warner indi"ted Tor the murder of the negro child.
l 4 a road tIn ,r,st A.- II
bodies OF these persons. and the following return
of the Sheriff.
HAMILTON CousrY, February 90.
line within-named defendants, Margaret Gar.
ner' Gt'dS Peggy Garner, Simon Garner, senior,
h"Dert uarneT, alas Simon Garner, Junior. and
Mary Garner, were discharged from nv custody
on the 2oth inst. by Humphrey IL. Leayitt. ,Judre
OF tho United States District Court for the Southern
District OF Ohio, under a writ of habcas corpvs is.
sued from said Court dated February IS, 1856. and
to me directed, which writ of ha5eus corpus is
hereto attached; also the certificate of said JUDGE
discharging said prisoners from my custody.
@. BRAS4EARS,
Sheriff Hamilton County, Ohio,n
After the decision of Judge Leavitt he (the Pros.
ecutlnG Attorney issued another capaiS to which
the Sheriff returned that be could not find the par.
ties.
Judge Carter remarked that he had not the
Wv VI saying tnut IL was cOmDetent Tor
The Sheriff of this county, acting ON the order Of
the Court in the issuing of the capias to have ar
rested these defendants, no matter what may have
been their position in reference to any other Court
IN the land. Under a Government like this there
Is no refuge Tor CRIME, and the perpetrator can oc-
cnpy no position which would render him irrespon-
rlble to the laws which regulate the punishment
VI crime 1t was therefore competent for the Sher-
III to arrest the parties though they were before
lhe United states Court on n trial as to whether
they were fugitives from justice. 1t struck the
mind of this Court that after the issuing of capias
by the States Court, it was the duty of The United
States Court IN all p%ropriety, and even under the
rules CT comfy, forthwith to have terminated their
proceedings SO far as the question of the negroes
oelng tugitlves from justice was concerned, and
hana them over to answer for the crime committed
IN the mean time. To hold any other doc
trlne would be to say that fugitives from labor were
irresponsible for crime. This would be entirely
outrageous, to say the least of it. She Sheriff was
undoubtedly, bound to obey tho writ of habeas
corpus Issued by the United States Court; he.
dld so. But the United States Judge in his ex
ceeding wisdom decided that the question of the
negroes being fugitives was paramount to the
charge OF murder, and by the decision Of that Court
Inc Sherlif was Obliged to deliver the custody of
the parties TO the Marshal Of the United States.
With this action of the Sheriff no fault could be
found, but after he did that he might have served
another cdptaS on the parties before they reached
the limits OF the boundary of our State; though,
probably, the remarkable expedition with which
they were hurried off to the boundary lire of an
other state dld not give him time to inform him
sell as TO his duty. Under the circumstance that
the defendants were now without the Jurisdiction
vi the State, the Court would suggest to the Prose-
cutting Attorney that he had better get a rcouisition
from the Governor OF Ohio.
Mr.. Cox said he had sen. to the Governor a state.
nieht OF the facts with n copy of the indictment,
that no might take such action as he thought
proper.
Judge Hoadley, in relation to the remark of
the Court upon the subject of another capias, said
that he had applied to Judge Leayitt to receive a
supplemental return, setting up the fact that after
the original return was filed, the Commissioner
had proceeded to decide the case and grant his
certlhcate, and that the claimants had received il.
In the application to receive the amended return il
was shown an affidavit had been made to the Mar
shal under the ninth section of the Fugitive Slave
Law, and he urged to the United States Judge
than this changed the state of facts, and rendered
1t n controversy between the private right of the
master and the right of the State. but Judge L.
refused to receive the supplemental return, though
MS decision covered the proposition therein. If q
new capias, therefore, had been issued, it would
have been followed by another order of the same
KIND. Here the subject ended.
AN UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORT TO SAVE THE UNION
When the resolution to go into the election for U.
5. Senator, was before our House of Represents
tives. Mr.. Henderson of Madison moved to amend
as follows:
Resolved, That in such election it is the opinion
Of this House that no man should be supported
who has ever expressed, or who entertains senti-
ments of indifference to the preservation of the
Federal Union.
The House rejected this effort at Union saving
by a vote of SIS to SO. Mr.. Wade was elected and
the Union yet survives.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY DIsHoNoRED.-Mr. Jullife in
his letter of acceptance of the token of approval
of his efforts to save the unfortunate fugitiyes,
presented by some CT his fellow citizens, says:
"Religious liberty, without which man is de
priyed Of the highest dignity of his nature, lies