New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-01
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE.
THE FUGIvIvES RENAMED. BACK TO
SLAVERY
From the Cincinnati Gazette, Feo. q.

From the Cincinnati G1-stse, FEB. q.
At Il o'clock yesterday afternoon Commissioners
Penedry opened bis Court in the United States Court
rooms, Judge Leav;t giving vay,) and gave his de-
csion. He commenced by saying:
Previous to the disposition of the cases now before
US, we shall pass upon the motion" That we dis
charge Margaret Garner Simon Garner, senior, S-
mon Garner, junior, and Mary Garner, from the Gus
tody of the United States Marshal and deliver them
" INTO the possession Of said Sheriff" tbs motion
based upon an Indictment found by the Grand Jury OF
Hamilton County, Ohio, charging them with the crime
Of murder in the rst degree and capas issued upon
said indictment for their arrest.
We find no law 10 warrant u in making such order,
and therefore override the motion.
He then proceeded to consider the claim Of Marshall
to Simon Garner Senior; Simon Garner, junior, and
Mary Gamer.
u citizen of Boone County, und State OF Kentucky,
made affidavit, ETC., that one negro man named
Simon Garner senior aged about IS years; one negro
man named Simon Garner, jr aged about 20 years. and
one negro woman named Mary Garner aged about 50
years, who owe labor and service to james Marshall
for life under the laws Of Kentucky, escaped from the
State of Kentucky
The testimony for the claimant shows that these per-
sons are held by the said James Marsha slaves for
life under the laws of Kentucky, that The above named
persons the identical described In the claim.
ants affidavit, and that they escaped on the night OF
the 2eth day o.. January last, from said County and
state into the Southern District Of Ohio, where the
United States Marshall made the arrest.
The testimony for the defense 10, in substance, that
Simon Garner, junior, and Mary Garner, have both
been in Ohio previous TO their escape with the claim
ants consent but proof Of that kind is offered as
to Simon Gamer, senior.
These the principal facts elected in the invest
gation of this
The only question which we propose to discuss in
this case is docs the fact of the temporary Wat TO
Z" Ohio Of Simon Gamer, junior, and May Garner,
with the consent OF their MASTER prior 70 Their e.
'cape affect the rights of their CLAIMANT Or, in
other words James Marshall having permitted these
IN int Ohio. and they having vOlun-
tarily returned into his service, is their relation as
master and slave changed
Upon what principle, then, are we to md young
Simon and Mary Garner to be Free when In Ohio by
the consent of their master IL it in the clause of oar
State Constitution, which declares there shall be
no Slavery in this State, nor involuntary serytude,
except for the punishment Of crimel Article Isl,
Section 9Th.
The most recent bearing upon this point is that Of
Strader ct al vs.. Graham, B. Munroe, l73. The
facts in this case were: Srader g. German were the
owners of the steamboat Pike, and had permitted
three slaves Of Graham to come on their boat nom
Louisville to Cincinnati, whence they escaped INTO
Canada. The defense made by Strader s. German
was that these negroes were musicians, and allowed
to travel about by the complainant free negroes;
that the complainant gave them written consent 70
come Ohio, and that they remained here for long
time then returned into the State Of Kentucky, into
the service of their master, and therefore that tey
were free. Judge Marshall, in delivering the opinion
of the Court, held:
First: That Il master residing in Kentucky, ana
taking his slave with him to Ohio, for a Temporary
purpose, is not TO be understood as ren0uncing m
right to bis slave and the return of the slsye ~
Kentucky be cannot, on that ground, assert nghs"
reedOm.
Second. The owner of a slave who resides in Ken
lucky, who permits his slave TO go TO Ohio in charge
Of an agent for temporary purpose does not nreS
his night Of property in such slave.
This case afterward removed to the Supreme
Court OF the United States by writ of error sna
ChiefJustice Tsney delivered the opinion ofthe Cot
reported in 10 Towards Supreme Court RspcSS
go. He Gays: Much Of the argument on the psr1
the plaintiff in has been offered for the purp
" Of slowing that the judgment of the State Ceun
was erroneous in deciding that these negroes wsc
slaves and it is insisted that their previous employ
8 meDt in Ohio had made them free when they !"
/" turned into Kentucky"
Although the Chief-Justice decided that this wSr
the question before him, he states: That tbs
" dition Of the negroes a. 10 Freedom or Slavery
their return depended altogether upon the ~"
Kentucky, and could not be influenced by the y.
" Of Ohio; that it was exclusively in the pows
Kentucky to determine for itself whether the ~
"poyment in another State should or should not 49,
" them free On their return, and that the Coun
Appeals having decided that, by the laws OF NJ
State they continued TO be slaves that deeisionsS
" in bis opinion, conclusive" -.
This same doctrine is also fully maintained g
Supreme Court Of the United States %. The Ship ~
rome, IL Peters, Reports 70. The facts Of the
visited France, and had taken with her the slave
ella. Afterward she brought back by the 3d. 3d.
law Of Mrs Smith and lived in Louisiana ss bis ~
Chief Justice fancy, in delivering the opinion g.
Court, held; That even assuming BY the trsneh