Washington County, Ohio - Chapter 6: Politics from 1820 to 1860, 1902 (part 2 of 2)
From History of Marietta and Washington County, Ohio, and Representative Citizens, published 1902. 801 words, reproduced complete and unedited. Source changes inside the text are labelled in place.
Parts
The book prints this as one long chapter. It is split here so no single page grows too heavy to load; the text runs continuously across the parts and nothing is omitted.
- Part 1
- Part 2
The text
801 wordsMachine-read from scans of History of Marietta and Washington County, Ohio, and Representative Citizens, published 1902. Nothing has been corrected: fixing what looks like a misspelled name is how an invented one gets published. Source changes are marked where they occur.
"The prisoners Loraine, Garner and Thomas are bailed in ii bond of $100 each. A.sa Harris was taken for the three. No Virginia bail was asked; it is my opinion that Virginia never intends to decide the case. Judge McComas told a citizen of Ohio whom he thought trustworthy that he did not suppose that prisoners ever would come back and if they did not their bond never would be sued: if they appeared at the March term and renewed their cognizance there, in that c?se the Court at Richmond in June would decide that the act was done in Virginia, and if they again appeared in September, sentence would be passed upon them, and a petition immediately got up for a reprieve, signed first by Judge McComas and then by all the influential men in Wood County and then to be sent to Ohio for signatures, and have them reprieved before anything further can be done, and there they suppose the matter will re.st. The men are ready to do anything that is thought best and wish your advice whether to appear in March or not."
This appears to have been the end of the case which never reached a final decision. Mr. Vinton, in his argument in behalf of Garner, Thomas and Loraine, gave due prominence to the fact that they were taken on the Ohio shore, "nfty feet within the shore from low-water mark," but that was not the point be relied on. He denied absolutely that Virginia had any jurisdiction beyond the middle of the Ohio River. He maintained this proposition in an argument which seems conclusive.
"In the issue of Tuesday, the writer stated that the three prisoners, Loraine, Garner, and Thomas, confined in the Parkersburg Jail were discharged but failed to give details as to how they were discharged: not deeming it of interest tO' the general reader.
"The facts were, that the Court of last resort at Richmond, not desiring to commit itself on the question raised in the case, desired that the prisoners be discharged, on mere nominal bond, which was done and the Court never did decide the case, because the prisoners were never again called^ to appear.
"For some reason the State and Federal courts have nearly always found it convenient to dodge the question of the Southern boundary of the Northwest Territory between Ohio and Virginia, which boundary is fixed, under the grant of the State of Virginia, to all the territory 'northwest of the River Ohio." The question which has vexed the courts is what is meant by the 'river Ohio?' Is it the center of the navigable stream, the north side at lowwater mark, or does it extend to high-water mark? If to the latter mark, then these men were in Virginia, and amenable to her laws; but the Court shrank from giving this inuch desired construction (desired by Virginians) and had it so decided, the able counsel for defendant ould have carried the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where a settlement of the question would no doubt have released the prisoners, and then rendered the commonwealth and its officers liable for false imprisonment, a complication
"In one instance, a Common Pleas judge in Ohio held that a burglary committed by breaking intO' a wharf-boat moored to the Ohio shore was not within the State of Ohio, because the breaking was on the outer side of the boat, next to the channel of the river; and a West Virginia case from Jackson County was even more absurd than this; in that case the sale of liquor on board a shanty-1x)at, moored to the Ohio shore at high-water line opposite Ravenswood, West Virginia, was held to be a violation of the laws of West Virginia, but these cases scarcely rise to the digity of strong precedence.
"So much for the legal aspect of the case. Now, as to the unfortunate victims of the illegal imprisonment, and what became of them. Mordecai E. Thomas soon became blind after being released, and still lives at Quaker City, Ohio. Peter M. Garner died at Columbus. Ohio, many years ago, and Creighton J. Loraine died at Franklin County, Nebraska, last winter. They all left the filthy and damp prion much impaired in health, and never fully regained their former strength.
"Had they, for the time being, forgotten their Quaker extraction, on the memorable night, and vigorously used the weapon Nature gave them, as did some of their comrades, the Virginians would have gone home with both eyes n mourning and empty-handed.
"Other parties were present on that occasion; just how many we know not, hut we think Titus Shotwell, Borden Staunton, Hamilton Cottle, Jonathan Plumley, and others, most of whom are now dead, could give some facts if living."
Provenance
Text from History of Marietta and Washington County, Ohio, and Representative Citizens, published 1902, in the public domain in the United States and digitised by the Internet Archive.