The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1856-02-21
THE CINCINNATI FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE
CONFLICT OF JURISDICTION.
From the Cincinnati Gazette. February

FROM The CIncnnail Gazette, February 9.
At the opening of the Commissioners Court,
yesterday, the fugtives were not brought down
from the jail, but Sheriff Brashears appeared in
the court room with his counsel, (Mr. Mills, of
the firm of Mills & Hoadley,) and asked that
the Commissioner order the fugitiyes to be dis
charged from the custody of the United States
Marshal. The Sheriff desired to do only what
the law strictly required of him, but admitted
that to ascertain what that was, was a matter
of some difficulty
Jacob Finn and Mr.. Hedington, counsel for
the Marshal, opposed the motion, and the argu-
ment on it occupied the Court till the hour of
adjournment.
The fugitiVes having been indicted by the
Grand Jury for murder, the Sheriff had served
the warrant at the jail, and came into Court
considering them in his possession, hn. desired
the Court to make This order for the sake Of
avoiding any conflict with the Marshal.
Mr.. Mills cited the decision of Judge Mclean,
that a slave is man-therefore, his crime was
the crime of man, and as a man he could be
punished. If delivered up by the Marshal to
the master, and taken back to Kentucky, there
would be no means of bringing him here to an
swer this crime; for lie could not be demanded
ofthe Governor of Kentucky as a fugitioe from
Justice, because being taken away by legal pro-
cess was not fleeing.
The United States Marshars counsel claimed
that he was property, and as such must be re
turned to his owner. Property was not to be
held to answer for crime.
To this it was replied, that possession of prop
erty on civil process was, in Ohio, always held
subordinate to the criminal laws of the State.
BY deciding that a man could hold as proper
ty, one who had outlawed himself by crime,
would be TO render impotent the whole State of
Ohio.
An unruly bull running at large might be
shot, but the slave could not; and if he could
mot be held to answer as man, there would be
: no means of reaching him. If the slave were
considered mere brute, there would be no diff.
,fculty in the case. He could not then be held
] 70 answer for crime any more than vicious
horse who had kicked some mans brains out.
But the difficulty arose from regarding him as
a man, because, if at the same time slave and
tman, the claims of the master upon him might
conflict with those of the State.
Commissioner Pendery stated that he would
take the question under advisement, and that
the fugitives would remain in the custody of
Z the Marshal until it was disposed OF.
: Mr.. Hedington. The Sheriff came into Court,
saving he had them in custody. He wrested
Them from the officer of the Court, whicn Is a
contempt, and then comes and asks you to ap-
grove that contempt
Court There is question as to the custo-
dy. There is no evidence before the Court to
show that they are not still in the Marshal's
possession.
: Mr.. Mills. We only ask the Court not to in.
teyfere with our possession.
Mr.. Hedington. They are In the county Jail,
under a law of Ohio, requiring sheriffs to re-
ceive United States prisoners, and to bring them
out when ordered by United States Court.
Z, Mr.. Mills. Unless he seizes them.
Mr.. Hedington. Has he done SO?
? Mr.. Mills. Well, l suppose he has.
Court. We understand the object of this
application to be to prevent collision of au-
thorities AS we desire to avoid that, we will
make no order now, but only repeat the order
3fyesterday, requiring the Marshal to take them
i, the county jail, and keep them there until
Aais Court orders them brought out.
It was then announced that the case of Ar
xhibald K. Gaines, who Claims the mother of
the dead child and her living children, would
&c commenced to-day, at nine o'clock, to which
isme the Court adjourned.