The voice of freedom. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1839-1848, 1839-04-13
Interesting Slave Case.

ator of the 22d instant-communicated in letter
from James Mott, of Philadelphia, to the editor Of
that paper.
In this city, those who have fed for life and lib,
erty are frequently taken up, and by summary
process before Judge, sent back in chains to wear
the calling yoke of bondage and we have rea;
| son TO believe that sometimes those who are free
by slave law, are arrested. A case has recently
occurred, which excited more than usual interest,
and will attempt to give a brief statement Of it.
The case commenced about six weeks since, be-
fore Hopkinson, .. S. Judge for the district
Ruth Williams, of Prince Georges county, Ma
ryland claimed man whom she called Isaac, but
who is known in this city as VIM. Stansbury,
apparently about As years of age, of sober, indus
trious habits, having wife and several children.
The claimant produced several witnesses, who
were either connections or neighbors. They tes-
tilted that Isaac run away about 1915, or 1916
not before lSl5-and although they had not seen
him for more than % years, they knew him at
once he was the identical man that he had a
scar on the forehead produced by burn, which
was to be seen, and which made them more
sure. Some Of these witnesses, on their cross-ex-
animation, refused to answer certain questions;
and although they had no difficulty in remember
ing Isaac, whom they had not seen for more than
90 years, yet they could not pretend to recolIect
other facts, which had occurred within few
weeks, or even within "a hours. 1t was elected
by the cross-eXanination that a depraved man,
known here as a save-hunter for many years,
named George F. Albert, had written to the cai-
mant describing the said Isaac precisely, and in
forming her what measures would be necessary
in order to get possession of him. He told her
what witnesses to send, and to what they must
testily-that there must be no delay-that the
man would now bring a good price. The wit
c,1 -
tons, and testified accordingly, This letter was,
the counsel for the respondent called it, mod
ell of infamy.' The claimant was represented by
Edward D. lngraham, who has distinguished
himself in these unholy crusades against human
flesh. Isaac, as he was called, was most faithful.
ly represented by David Paul Brown, who has
spent much time in this and similar cases, and is
always ready to act in such business, and always
refusing to receive ought like fee or reward.
While Brown was addressing the Judge on a
point of evidence, he spoke Of the claimant as mas
ter. The adverse counsel said, mistress you
mean Brown replied No, sr-master is tho
word, for | can't connect woman with such
claim as this The case was several times adj
journcd from one week to another, in order to
give both parties an opportunity to obtain their .
proof. Several witnesses were examined on be-
half Of the respondent, who were mostly colored
men. The important point Of their evidence was
this fact, that in 1914 lprevous to the date fixed
by the claimant Of his having left his service) the
colored people of this city assisted, in a body, in
building forfcation near SchuykiIl river, as a
defence against the English and the said Isaac
was associated with them in this work that they
knew him then and ever since by the name of
VIM Stansbury.
The claimants witnesses alleged that the moth
err was now living in Washington, D. c. and was
free woman. Stansbury's friends sent for her,
and she testified that the so called Isaac was not
her son. Some other evidence was elected on
behalf of The respondent, but the above is the most
material. 1t is proper to say that the coored
witnesses gave their testimony, both in chief and
on cross-examinaton, in a manner that was very
creditable, and hundreds of others whose sympa-
ties brought them to the place, conducted with
great proprety and decorum.
About a week since, the case was argued. D.
P. Brown spoke for two hours, in the presence of
large audience of both sexes and all colors-
Nothing could have been more uncompromising
than his denuncations Of slaveholding, slavehold-
crs, and slave-catchers. The southern witnesses
were present, and were objects of mingled pity
and contempt. Brown said that from tie spec
mems exhibited on this OCCASION whether OF nei-
lec or morals, the colored people of this city had
reason TO doff their caps to the citizens OF the
South, and no overweening courtesy ought to in
duce him to disgrace the colored witnesses by a
comparison. Ingraham's speech in closing the
case was very abusive. He seemed TO place his
reliance on the ground that the respondents wit,
nesscs were not to be believed, because they were
of the same color and race as the alleged slave
Yesterday the Judge gave his decision The
court room was filled TO overAoWng-the scene
was interesting and thrilling in the extreme. The
respondent, who had been in jail from the time of
his arrest was seated within the bar, his wife by
his side, surrounded by five neat and healthy look:
ing children, the youngest seated IN his apInot
knowing but that it would be the last time they
should see him, and that in few minutes he
might be handcufed before their eyes, and drag
red into interminabe slavery. The anxiety Of
he audience was intense. More than an hour
was occupied in reading the decision. AS legal
document, it evinced care and labor and declared
The counsel was wrong in supposing that the testi;
nony for the respondent must be rejected because
It came from persons Of the same color and race
IS himself and if it were So the same argument
might be applied to the testimony for the clamang
outlaw and justice forbid the application Of SUCH