Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-07-07

I
master Or, II that pfsaumption should be 70
butted by evidence, then the legal presumptio,
would be that he came here by the act Of Go,
by the winds or the waves, in spite Of him
selt--lnless there were some evidence pointin,
TO different conclusion For cannot holc
the mere facts that man was a prisoner II
Kentucky yesterday, and is at large in Ohio TO
'day, to be any evidence that his enlargement /
illegal.
Certainly, the slaves coming here by the ac
Of God, is not an escape And aimee the slav,
status can exist only by the concomitaucy o
the Slave law, and, since the slave law can b,
coneomitant with bis person here only by IN,
slaves escaping hther, bis coming here by the
act OF God must leave his status as a slave be-
hind him, and invest him with the inevitabl,
status of a freeman
Nor ought the master TO complain Of this in
evltable necessity. Ought he TO complain O.
inevitable death And, il not, he ought moi
70 complain Of an act Of God which releases
him with no worse result to the master, bot 4
result always due slave by the law of natrfei
Should the whirlWind which releases The slave
by death be blameless, and the whirlwnd which
stops short Of death but drops him ia free
state, be blameabe In each case, tie slave
law would end because the slave was beyond
its Jurisdiction by the act OF God
Is there anything, then, in the case, which
should palsy our law, whenever the man thus
freed might claim its projections Neither the
law OF nature, nor the common law, nor any
enactment, nor any comfy of State, indicates
any such thing.
If, then, the evidence should convince Won OF
an attempt forcibly or fraudulently 70 carry of
or decoy out Of this State any black or mulatto
or to arrest or imprison any such person, with
intent to have him carried out of this State. not
In pursuance Of the laws Of Ohio, and. if Won
do not find from evidence that he came into
ONO by an actual escape from service or labor.
whatever the proof may be that he had been q
slave, you will hold him to be free, and that the
act described was a misdemeanor, for which
you WIN indlct whomsoeyer you find to have
committed t.
In this position, that the law presumes every
man in Ohio to be free, | am upheld bv tbe
Constitution of this State, as well as bv that
of the United States.
Our Bill Of Rights begins, "Sec. |. All men
are by nature free and independent. Sec. 2.
All political power is inherent in the peope 49,
Government is instituted for their equal pro
lection and benefit"
Does any caviller pretend that the words, 'all
men,' IN the first section, and in the second
people, for whose equal protection and benefit
government has been instituted, were meant 10
exclude blacks and mulattoesl In art. 8 SEQ
/, we hnd-"Every white male oirzen of the
United States of the age of twenty. one years.
who shall have been a resident Of the State one
year, shall be entitled To vote
at all elections.
Now the word white" here describes cer.
tam male citizens of the United States, and
distinguishes them from certain male citizens
IA | nj oil N..a. r
conclusion Is inevitable from the language. But
neither in their Legislative nor in their iu1iciaI
acts, nor m their common speech, have the peo-
pie of Ohio distinguished any other resident
person IN respect of color, than whites. blacks.
and mulattoes. by necessary implication
those male citizens of the United States in
ONO, who are not entitled TO vote at all elec.
tons, are not whites, but are blacks or mulat.
toes Did the people of Ohio, in adopting their
Constitution, mean 10 exclude from their Rill
OF Rights men whom, in tho same instrument
they declared to bo citizens of tho limited
States Not at all This construction il con.
frmed by Art, o, See. l.--All white male oiti.
zens residents Of this State ss*Ett4+.shall ho
in the militia" dc. Now. here n i
provided that those who are to be enrolled sbslI
bo male citizens, be residents, be whites. Rpt
THIS necessarily implies, fret, that there are
male cltlzens here who are not residents of this
State and, therefore, this word "citizepT. -
must here probably mean citizens of the ITni.
leu 9'aIes and secondly, that there may DO
cit'Aehs ol the United States here who are not
whltes' ana, therefore, are either blacks or mu.
citizens Of Ohio, then blacks and mu'attoes
may be citizens Of Ohio.
This presumption of universal freedom IA
by the common sentiment which o. ave-
our nation BIRTH and which therefore NAV we'll
be regarded rs a part of our common law. n
10 expressed IN our Declaration of Indepsnd.
ence-a declaration OF no new discover es II
was but the utterance of principles 80 common.
80 pefVaslye and so long felt that they were
there set forth az an indisputable law ofburn,n
nature l know that there is a puerile caVi
that the language" All men are created ednaI
and are endowned by their Creator with cc5tain
lnallenable rghts-among these ara life IN.
arty' and the pursuit Of happiness"-was not
intended TO include black men. II reouires
more than ordinary patience to answer this
cavil, when we remember that the very point
In dispute between the colonies and the mother
country was whether the sovereignty of Great
Britain was illimltable, or was limited bv the
equal and unnlienSble rights OF all mankind the
administration claiming that the sovereignty
d the hlhg ana Parliament vas without iimi-
-atlon over It's subjects, and the cOlonists reply.
ng thSt human sovereignty was Glways limited
by the equal rights of all is subiects-the nm.
ilienable rights Of all mankind.
They claimed that whenever human sover-
'lSnty 80 ovorstepped its lawful sphere as to
rample upon these unRienable rights. a was
tsell rebel against the law that limits Il, and
night DO lawfully oveTthrown And when ar
yument was exhausted and they stood upon
hoiT riRhls, they held forth these seEeyident
rulhs, and made their appeal upon them 20 ali
he world IT, from these unaiienabje rigbts
heir language had excluded any part OF the
human race, their appeal would have been a
noekey
The second section Of this statute. AZ before
tated provides for the case of one claimed "a a
fugitive from service or labor, and prohibits aBy
'ttempt to get him out Of the State except a.
prescribed by the laws Of the United States.
1t u very probable the highest judicial au.
horlty Of Ohio would hold so much of that
Y Jhlled states statute, known as the Fugitive
slave law as authorizes the reception and 70.
urn oI one claimed as fugitive without the
tlal py jury, 10 be unconstitutional But as
his criminal statute seems to recognise that
provision Of the Fugitive Slave Law as valid.
Ne pass by that question. TO note what, il Il Is
iot more favorable to liberty, is, at least, less
a'oraDio TO tyranny. The only person au
horlzed by that act 10 pursue and reclaim such
uglt'Ye either by warrant, or by seizinR him
Without warrant is, first tho master, or, sec
'ndly, "hiS agent or attorney duly authorized
y power OF attorney, in wdiing acknowledq.
ID and certified under the seal Of some Legal
Nicer or court Of the State or Territory In
which the same may be executed"
ANY peraon, but the master Of the actual fu.
sluVe' or his agent or attorney. authorized ia
very particular 40 above stRted--by power of
..ulorn1y' IN writing, acknowledged and eerti.
lea under seal strictly as prescribed by the
person, but tho master, not tbus
orthed as agent, who claiming such fugitive.
las, within this county, done or attempted AZ