Washington telegraph., 1856-04-16
From the National Intelligencer.
Fugitive Slave Case.


A complicated slave case was decided last
week at Cincinnati, Ohio 1t occupied the
courts two or three weeks, and may be brief
y summed up.
About five weeks ago seven or eight
slaves eloped from Kentucky, and were ar
natl The defence showed, as regarded a
portion Of them, that with their owners
consent they had been in Ohio previous to
their escape, and had returned to service in
Kentucky. Commissioner Pendery decid-
ed that this did not give them their freedom.
He cited, as bearing upon the point, an
opinion of Judge Marshall, of the State
Court, which had been affirmed by the Su-
preme Court of the United States
In the case referred to, Chief Justice
fancy decided that the condition of the ne
groes as to freedom or slavery after their
return depended altogether upon the laws
of Kentucky, and could not be Influenced
by the laws of Ohio; !; that it was exclusive
ly IN the power of Kentucky to determine
for itself whether their employment in an
| other State should or should not make them
free on their return; and that the Court of
Appeals having decided that, by the laws of
that State, they continued to be slaves, that
decision was, in his opinion, conclusive
This doctrine is also fully sustained by
the Supreme Court Of the United States in
the case of the United States vs. the ship
Garonne. The facts of this case were, that
Mrs Smith, of Louisiana, had visited
Franco, and had taken with her the slave
Priscilla. Afterwards she was brought
| back by the son-in-law of Mrs. Smith, and
lived in Louisiana as his slave. Chief jus
tice Taney. in delivering the opinion of the
Court, held that even assuming that by the
freedom upon her introduction into that
country, the Court was of opinion that there
was nothing in the act of Congress to pre-
vent her mistress from bringing her back
to her place of residence and continuing to
hold her as before in her service; and that,
although the girl had been staying for
time In France, in the service of her mis-
tress, yet in contemplation of law she still
continued an inhabitant of Louisiana.
The Commissioner decided that though
clause Of the Constitution of the State of
Ohio declares 'sthere shall be no slave
ry or involuntary servitude within her linn
| its" yet that clause was to prevent slavery
as an institution rather than to execute an
act of manumission upon foreign slaves tenn
pcrarily on the soil Had these slaves,
whilst in Ohio by their owners consent re-
fused to return. they could not have been
sent back as fugitives. After arguing the
case somewhat fully, the Commissioner de-
cided that these slaves must be restored to
their owners.
A babeas corpus was then issued out be-
fore Judge Leavitt In regard to four of the
slaves, respecting the custody of whom a
conflict of authority had arisen between the
Marshal of the United States and the Sher-
iff of Cincinnati For safe keeping the
Commissioner had ordered all the fugitives
to be kept in the Jail of Hamilton county,
to be produced before him when called for
The Sheriff refused to deliver the four al
luded to, for the reason that an indictment
for murder had been found against them by
the grand jury of Hamilton county, Zone of
the women, as is alleged, having killed her
child) Judge Leavitt heard the case ar
gued, and on the 29th ultimo delivered an
elaborate opinion, the amount of which is
that he could find no legal basis to justify
the holding of these fugitives on the crimi-
nal Indictment He did not see how the
custody of the United States in this case
could be superseded. A fugitive is respon-
| sible for violations of the criminal laws of
the State to which he may have fled; but,
as in this case. the parties were in custody
! of an officer of the United States, under a
| law of that Government. before their ar
rest for crime in Ohio, the latter arrest
could not be enforced until the disability of
the prior arrest should be removed. This
opinion was also fortified by references to
the authority of the Supreme Court of the
United States.
| The case Of Dorr was an application for
habeas corpus to deliver him from imprison-
ment in Rhode Island. under sentence of
treason committed against that State; Judge
Mclean said that neither the Supreme
Court nor any other court of the United
States, or Judge thereof. can issue habeas
corpus to bring up prisoner who is IN Gus
tody under a sentence or execution of
State Court, for any other purpose than to
be used as witness; and it is immaterlai
whether the imprisonment be under clU1t or
criminal process.
Judge Leavitt ruled in conformity with
this decision, maintaining at the same time
that to deny the right of the sheriff to ar
rest the slaves did not conflict with the dig
nifty of the State of Ohio The proper re-
dress of the State must be under the laws
and Constitution of the United State, which
provide for a reclamation Of the accused by
a demand upon the Executive of the State
Of Kentucky.
The fugitives were delivered to their own
ers, and conveyed by the Marshal to the
Kentucky side of the river.
| To BREAK UP FARM.-Early iu the
spring as soon as you have laid in a supply
Of the best ploughs, harrows rakes, hoes,
&C., employ an overseer and spend the bal