The Sun.
London, England, 1861-01-10 00:00:00

TEX CANADA EXTRADITION CASE.

The inhabitants of Toronto held a public meeting
on the 19th for the purpose of expressing sympathy
with the fugitive slave Anderson. The Mayor was
called to the chair. Resolutions in favour of the
objects of the meeting were carried enthusiastically,
and the following petition to the Governor-General
was unanimously adopted :—
" The memorial and petition of the undersigned
most respectfully showeth—
,, That as inhabitants of this free British province,
and warmly attached to the British constitution,
we feel deeply concerned in any event, or act of
civil administration, by which the reputation of
our country as one whose soil cannot be polluted
with slavery, might be tarnished, or the influence
of British laws given directly or indirectly to the
upholding of a cruel oppression.
" That, alarmed by the manner in which the
rash, and, as your petitioners believe, improper act
of
.a local authority in Canada, in arresting and de-
taming under an alleged charge of murder in the
State of Missouri, the person of Anderson, now in
gaol in Toronto, has been affirmed by a majority
of the judges of the Queen's Bench, your peti-
tioners gladly betake themselves to your Excel-
lency as the acting head of the executive Govern-
ment, in the earnest hope that such a decision may
not prevent your Excellency from disposing of this
case in harmony with the spirit of our laws and
the dictates of eternal justice.
" That your petitioners believe that a just as well
as liberal interpretation of the Ashburton Treaty
would exempt the accused party, Anderson, from
the range of its applioation ; and they are strength-
ened in this belief, not only by the authority of a
judge of long experience on the Queen's Bench
itself, but by the opinions of eminent practical
lawyers in Canada, and by decisions in analogous
cases both in Britain and the United States; also,
by documents extant and accessible, illustrating
the meaning of Lord Ashburton and other parties
closely connected with the arrangements of the
said treaty.
" That were the prisoner in question remanded
to a United States jury in the circumstances
alleged, and in the present state of the slave law,
the prisoner's opportunities of obtaining impartial
judgment are so small, and so diminished beyond
all that could have been foreseen by the parties to
the.
Ashburton Treaty—especially since the deci-
sion in what is known as the Dred Scot case,
which affirms that a coloured person hasino rights
that he can assert, or which citizens of the republic
are bound to respect—that his rendition on the
evidence alleged would be to recognise a state of
things never contemplated by those who framed
the treaty. And your memorialists submit that
where so much as a doubt of the reading of the
treaty exists, the benefit should, as usual, but espe-
cially where such momentous interests are con-
cerned, be given to the accused ; and the case, so far
as it happily comes for preliminary judgment before
our own Government, should be decided in a large
and humane construction of the clauses of the treaty
and the acts of Parliament bearing upon it rather
than by mere technicalities.
" That the consequences of disposing of this cause
otherwise cannot, your memorialists hope, but
appear to your Excellency and your Government
most dangerous to the sacred interests of just
liberty, in rendering the condition of many indus-
trious residents in this province one of extreme
peril. Nothing being easier than by means of such
evidence as has been brought forward in this cue
to drag them back to bondage, or subject them to
the cruel pains of a law which gives no equal pro-
tection to the slave, whethet as regards life, chastity,
or religion, and thus to render oar, happily, free
territory a hunting-ground for persons whose
crime may only have been that they dared to be
better than slaves, and defended, at the risk of their
own lives, or with possible danger to the lives of
aggressors and spoilers, their inalienable rights and
their dearest domestic relations.
" That, reposing confidence in the generous and
British-like spirit of your Excellency, and in the
belief that 3 our memorialists plead only fur what is
just and right, according to the law of nations, the
sacred demands of religion, and the true reading of
international compacts, they pray your Excellency
to release the prisoner aforesaid, and hold him not
liable to be rendered up to foreign authorities as
claimed."
At the conclusion of the meeting the Mayor said
he was exceedingly gratified at the manner in which
the whole proceedings had been conducted. He
hoped, however, that they would respect the law.
The law must be treated with respect; but if he read
the treaty and the statutes aright, Anderson would
never be given up. (Cheers.) They were met that
evening as one man, without respect to politics or
party, and he was confident that the news of such
an influential and unanimous meeting would c vuse a
bright ray of light to penetrate the prisoner's dark
cell. (Great cheering.)

At the Court of Queen's Bench, Toronto, on De-
cember 22, before Chief Justice Robinson, Mr.
Justice M`Lean, and Mr. Justice Burns,
Messrs. S. B. Freeman, M. C. Cameron, and
Thomas Hodgins, appeared on behalf of the fugi-
tive, John Anderson.
Mr. Freeman rose for the purpose of saying that
after consulting with his friends respecting the
case of the fugitive Anderson, they had made up
their minds to carry the case to the Court of
Error and Appeal. lie (Mr. Freeman) could not
say there was no doubt of the right to do so, but he
was glad to be able to state that he had received a
communication from the Attorney-General upon
the subject of appeal, and he had his assurance
that the Crown was most anxious to procure the
judgment of the Court above. The Attorney-
General had gone so far as to say that any expenses
would be borne by the Government. The chief
difficulty which appeared to present itself was the
consideration of the question—were the proceed-
ings a matter of record? Several authorities he
(Mr. Freeman) had looked at showed that the writs
of this description when returned were matters of
record. The practice of the two courts here, when
one of them gave judgment, was that the other
court would pronounce the same judgment upon the
same facts until the party went to the Court of
Error and Appeal. This was the reason why he
(Mr. Freeman) had determined not to take out a
writ of habeas corpus in the Common Pleas, for the
judges might tell him when he got there they
would follow the judgment of the Court of Queen's
Bench until reviewed by a higher court. But if
he went to the Court of Error and Appeal, and he
was told there he had no appeal, he would be in a
position to ask an independent judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas.
The Chief Justice said the Court had looked into
the statutes constituting the Court of Error and
Appeal, and after carefully considering the matter,
came to the conclusion that no appeal would lie. As
to what counsel had said with respect to the Court
of Common Pleas, the course in dealing with ordi-
nary cases was as he had stated it. But in a case
of this description he (the Chief Justice) thought
they might expect that an independent judgment
would be given.

Mr. F re-eman—I understand your lordships think
there probably is no rule under the statute for an
appeal.
The Chief Justice—I can find none.
Mr. Freeman—I suppose your lordships will
make no objection to being brought
before the Court of Appeal if that Court thinks fit
to hear it
The Chief Justice—Certainly not. It would be
for counsel to consider whether they were not in the
present state of the case limited to intercourse with
the Crown. If they had in view an appeal from
this country, their object should be to prevent the
prisoner being given up. That was a matter be-
tween themselves and the Government.
Mr. Freeman intimated that he had no fear of
the prisoner being surrendered while further legal
proceedings were contemplated. The Government
was most anxious to have the judgment of the Court
of Appeal in the case.

The following extract bearing on this case, from
the speech of Lord Aberdeen in the House of Lords
in moving the Extradition of Offenders Bill on
Friday, June 30, 1843, is very interesting :—
lie did not anticipate that any inconvenience
could arise from the carrying out of this treaty, ex-
cept what referred to the case of fugitive slaves,
and this was, nti- doubt, a subject that would re-
quire the utmost caution on the part of those who
would have to administer the law, arising from the
new relations between the two countries. Some
people had supposed that a fugitive slave might be
given up under this treaty. This, he must say, I
was a most unfounded notion. Not only was a I
fugitive slave guilty of no crime in endeavour-
ing to escape from a state of bondage,
but he was entitled to the sympathy and
encouragement of all those who were ani-
mated by Christian feelings. Bat then it had
been said a slave running away might be accused
of theft, on the ground that the clotnes ho wore
were not his own, but the property of his master.
This, however, in his (the Earl of Aberdeen's)
judgment, could never be construed into a theft.
Nay, more, if a slave took a horse with him, or
seized upon a boat, or, in short, appropriated to his
use anything that was necessary to his flight, such
an act could never be held to establish an animus
furandi. Another point must be borne in mind,
namely, that if at any time a fugitive slave should
be demanded under this treaty, the demand would
not be made by any Slave State, but by the central
governmen t at Washington, and this in itself would