Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-06-06
-. cor,,,v.Ts, Ksnneay ReauIsItion.

VVRnNFsDAY.......... 9
state Comisy-The Kennedy Reauisition.
Since we commented on this case, 1t has
been noticed in the Ohio State Journal
which accepts the statement in the Memphis
Appeol as true, and sustains Gov. Dennison
in refusing to deliver Kennedy on requisi-
ton from the Governor of Tennessee, for
stealing slaves in that State and selling them
in Virginia, on the ground that slaves are
not recognized as property by the laws Of
Ohio, and therefore it can not be a crime,
under our laws TO steal them. From the
position of the State Joarndl as the paper
through which Gov. Dennison would natur-
ally make his statement of the case, if he had
any statement different from the published
version to make, the facts in the case may be
regarded as settled, according to the account
published by the Memphis APPsai an alb
stract of which we published, and commented
on in another article. The circumstances
are Kennedy abandoned his wife in Ten
nessee and fed with another woman, carry
ing off five slaves which were the separate
property of his wife, and selling them in
Virginia, from whence he came TO Ohio.
The Governor of Tennessee issued a requisi-
ton for Kennedy, for stealing the negroes,
which Gov Dennison refused, as above
stated.
As we said in another article, it is not
necessary, in order to show that this requisi-
ton has been improperly and injudiciously
refused, TO deny to the State the largest dis
cretion due to sovereignty in deciding
whether it is case which will justify the
State in withdrawing her protection from a
man who claims it. The first duty of State
is to protect its citizens; and everyperson on
its soil, man, woman and child, black and
white, is a citizen, entitled to its protection
until case is shown to the contrary, orto for
felt his claim to it. A State which does moi
protect the humblest of its citizens, only
abuses the name of State.
In the hostility which exists among differ
ent States, and in the fanaticism which, in
some cases, would make crime of the mere
sentiments of the people of another State,
acquisitions may be made the means Of
great abuses, and it becomes every State,
North or South, to see that the safety of its
own citizens is not endangered. But all that
is necessary in the matter is to discharge
its duty sconscientiously, with due regard,
first, to the right of the man who claims pro-
lection, and then to State comfy and moral
responsibility.
How have these been regarded in this case2
No body will pretend that Kennedy deserves
our protection. He has robbed his wife both
of her property and her marital rights, and
has aggravated the offense by wasting her
property upon another woman. There is no
fanaticism for freedom nor higher law to
relieve the case, for he sold the negroes into
slavery. In the eyes of anti-slavery men he
is man-stealer. The moral sentiment of the
people of Ohio is as much violated by the
protection given to his offense, as that of the
people of Tennessee. That is the moral as
pect of the case.
Legally, the points made by the Stat
Journal, are, that upon demand being mad,
for surrender, the Executive must determine
whetherthe offense charged is either "treason
felony or other crime" within the meaning
of the provision of the Constitution. 1t say
further:
Different rules of construction of this pro-
vision of the Constitution may obtain in diff
ferent States In this State, however, tn,
rule has long been settled that to authoriz,
the surrender of a fugitive from justice, tn,
offense must be such one as is recognized a.
a crime by the common law, or by our Grim.
inal code"
Inasmuch as no crime can be punished
under the common law, at least not in this
State, this restriction of the surrender Of
fugitives from justice to those whose offenst
is recognized by the common law, would
seem to be the widest latitude. The JourRa
sustains this position by an opinion of Henry
Stanberry when he was Attorney General o
Ohio in l849, in case of a requisition for {
free man of color for aiding the escape of {
slave from his master in Virginia; but cor
rect application of the rule laid down BY
Mr.. Stanberry would have granted this re
QUESTION. The cases are not parallel. On
was the aiding man TO escape from slavery
the other, selling another persons negroe
into slavery. The selling of the negroes int
slavery in Virginia constituted the crime c
Kennedy No crime could have been mad
out without that. The selling of men int
slavery is a crime under our laws. viii
be said that the selling of these persons wa
no crime under our laws in Kennedy's cas-
because they were slaves and then that
was no crime under our laws, because unde
our laws they were not slaves? Yet TIL
beautiful double-cornered logic is that relic
upon to sustain Governor Dennison's pos
tion.
The rule that in order to comply with
Tequisition for the surrender of a fugitiy
from justice, :" the offense charged must
recognized as q crime either by the commc
law or by our statutes, is contradictory
itself The principle is that we should n
deliver up . fugitive unless the often
charged is a crime under the law of tn
State, and the rule that lays down this pri
ciple, provides that he may be delivered I
for an offense recognized by the CONNIE
law, while no crime can be punished by ii
common law in Ohio. 1t is contradictory
another respect; common law is founded e
tirely on local usages and customs, aud a
cording to its very essence, the local usag
and customs Of the place where the often
oo,.....ikk.1 Az ...s -