Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-10-27
THE JURISDICTION OF OHIO.

h0" DIuSe Mds CdIEyluR lEom virginia 70 hllb-
souri,, upon one of the river boats a slave boy by
the name of Henson. The boat stopped at the
Cincinnati landing, and was tied up TO the shore.
While lying there, O writ Of habeus corpus was
sued out before Judge GholsOn, and the proceed
ings in the case are thus briefly reported
Mr.. JolIife argued thecase for applicant, claim
ing that the boy was found within our jurisaic-
ton, and as slavery could not exis! in Ohio under
her constitution and laws, he must be declared
free.
Judge Gholson announced the decision(t the other
members of the court, Judges Carter, Mallon, and
Collins, ooncuring,) and held that, although the
Jurisdiction of our courts extended for many pur-
poses to boats on tho Ohio river, the citizens of
Virginia and other States bordering on the south
had a right to the free navigation of the river /;
that the stopping of boats and tying up at the
landing was o necessary incident to the right Of
free navigation, and as such, rested on a higher
basis than the mere jurisdiction of the river.
In the course of the decision it was remarked
that, while we should carefully maintain our own
rights, yet the courts must also see to it that the
rights of our neighborS were not infripged. The
sheriff was directed to return the boy to his owner
on the boat.
"Siaves cannot breathe in England
They touch our country and their shackles fall, /"
is one of the proudest boasts the British people
ever made. But not SO in Ohio. Not only are
fugitive slaves chased through the State by consti-
tutional hounds, but in accordance with the above
decision of Judge Gholson, slaves may be brought
in trGnSitu to the northern shore Of the Ohio river
and there held as slaves under Virginia, Kentucky
and Missouri laws. The floating palaces of the
river may display manacled gangs Of southern
chattels to the wondering eyes Of the people of
Cincinnati, just SO long as the boat on which they
are embarked finds it necessary or convenient to
stop there on is passage.
The Judge holds that the State of Ohio has ju-
risdiction to a certain extent over the north shore
of her river boundary, but not to the extent that
will enable her TO declare that slaves brought with
in her jurisdiction-even for the purpose of trans
p~ortation only-are thereby made free. 1t would
really seem to those who know SO little of law that
they Judge Of a matter by common sense rather
than by legal decisions and prccedents, legal
equity and State comfy, that when a question is
raised as to whether the laws and constitution Of
Ohio which prohibit the existence Of slavery upon
its soil other than in the case of fugitives-should
prevail upon its territory, or the chattel laws Of
the Slave States, that the preference should be
given to the former. It is possible that such de-
cisiou as was rendered by Judge Gholson was a
necessary union-saving appliance, or at least an
emollient which is desirable in the present angry
and inhamed state of the southern mind. How
ever this may be, we fear the decision is but the
entering Of a wedge that may readily be driven
home. When slaves are permitted to be held in
~transitu upon the northern banks of the Ohio, a
short step leads to a decision that the master may
carry his slave upon any of our rivers and if on
our rivers, why not on our railroads, and on our
other roads2