Holmes County Republican. [volume] (Millersburg, Holmes County, Ohio) 1856-1865, 1857-11-12
The slave Case in Cincinnati.

Yesterday we gave an account of the
appointment of guardian for the thres
slaves claimed by Thornton Withers o
Fauquier Co., Va, by Judge Burgoyne.-
Subsequently writ of habeas corpus wa.
issued by Judge Carter, who disregardet
or nullifed the proceedings before Judge
Burgoyne, had thu negroes brought before
him, and remanded them to the custody
of their alleged master, who had then
spirited off to Kentucky. When this fac
was ascertained, Mr.. Jollife asked for {
writ against Alfred George Washington
Garter, commanding him to show cause
why he should not be punished for con
tempt. Judge Burgoyne stated that Judge
Garter had said that he would take nc
further action in the matter until the pro.
ceeding in the probate Court was disposed
of. The Gazette says:
/ Don Piatt remarked-I suggest, Sir,
you bring Judge Carter before you for vio-
lation of the process of your Court. He
has been guilty ofan unlawful act, an out
rage, and there is no question of any con-
fict of jurisdiction. He should therefore,
be brought up as any other citizen for in
terfering with the process of the Court, and
1 trust it will be done.
Nh. Peat hoped the Court would care
fully consider the position of the parties
before that was done.
Mr.. Piatt considered that Judge Carriers
position aggravated the case.
Judge Burgoyne said when the applica-
tion was made in due and proper form, be
should consider it. He remarked then
that he regretted they had not an opportu-
nifty of examining the question, (never yet
fairly met as to the whether slavery could
exist within the jurisdiction of Ohio.
The discussion was then dropped, and
the whole matter left for such future &C,
tion as may be deemed proper.
This case presents another conflict of ju-
risdiction and judicial action in our courts,
which is fast becoming a reproach. While
the Probate Court was anxiously waiting
the arrival of the slaves, on writ returna-
bic at 2 o'clock, Judge Carter sends them
back to the custody of their master, with
the simple inquiry as to whether that was
their desire. To have answered otherwise
would have subjected them to the slave
holders displeasure, and probably to severe
punishment if again put in his possession
by process of law.
In the face of this summary action of
Judge Carter, also, we are assured that
that gentleman previous to his opening his
court, in the afternoon, had conversation
with Judge Burgoyne, in which he express
ed willingness to leave the final disposi-
tion of the matter TO the Probate, Court,
and assured Judge Burgoyne, in so many
words, that he aoould take no further ac-
!ioa an the premises. Half an hour later,
he ordered the Sheriff to deliver the slaves
into the custody of the gentleman claiming
Them as his property. If such was the
language of Judge Carter-and we do not
near it contradicted-he not only violated !
every principal of right and courtesy, but
ne has laid himself liable to severe censure
therefor, if not to charge which may Sc
'iously affect his judicial position. The
question as to whether he could legally Or
Ter the slaves before himself, by habeas
,urpus, while they were virtually in the
ustody of another Court of competent ju-
becomes one of serious import,
md we cannot but regard his position in
he matter as one decidedly unenyiable. I