Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1846-01-08

ESQ, is next in order, aud reads thus: "Conscious oil
innocence, and with a heart free from guile, l take the
liberty to say, my Imprisonment is an act OF cruelty,
injustice, and oppression without a parallel ths side the
broad Atlantic. | cannot comprehend why 1t 10 that
should be so prosecuted by this most worthy common
wealth. | have done nothing, | have said nothing, to
merit the animosity or d~ispleasure of this community"
Keep in view, sir, that, to make good your charge Of
~falsehood, You are to prove, from my book, that ldented
aiding the escape of slaves. Let us examine this ex-
tract, then, for a moment, and see if that denial is to be
found here. Is it in the fact that l affirmed that | was
conscious Of innocence, and that my heart was free
from guile? 1t is all that ! could or would declare, if
had assisted every slave in all the south to make his
escape to Canada. Is the denial to be found in the
fact that | declared my Imprisonment to be an act Of
cruelty, injustice and oppression? Declaring that fact
is one thing, but denying that ! had aided slaves in
their escape, is altogether another thing. But once
more. Is it not both cruel and oppressive to imprison
an individual for obeying the requirements of the BIZ
Bile? That, you will not presume to deny. Very well.
Assisting slaves to escape from bondage is but yield
ing obedience to the following scriptures: Ps. s.: /;
"Deliver the poor and needy; rid them out of The hand
of the wicked" Pr. p: IL; "Deliver him that is spoil
ed out OF the hand of the oppressor," Now | ask you,
sir, as an expounder of the Bible, are not the above
passages in poInt?-that is, do they not favor the point
for which | have quoted them? If so, then | was i'm
prisoned for doing the will of my Heavenly Father;
which certainly was, as the extract declares, unjust,
cruel, and oppressive. But how, sir, does the proclaim
ing of that fact amount to a denial of having aided the
escape of slaves? Perhaps you are prepared to an
swer. | will await your reply.
Again, is the denial to be found in the fact, that |
declared l had done nothing to merit the animosity or
displeasure of that community. The word merit means
pleasure? say, the very act for which they imprison-
ed me deserved, instead Of their disappIobation, their
warmest appreciation. And where, in the remark, suf-
fer me to inquire again, do you find your denial of aid
ing slaves to escape?
3. The testimony of Mr., Grant is next referred to, who
SAYS, p. "a, 81 talked with Miss Webster in relation to
Lewis and the other negroes, and she denied that she
had any thing to do with them, and said she knew
nothing about them" You remark, "others testify the
same, and Miss Webster re-publishes the testimony
sodhOut a uord Of contradictions" Here, sir, you are
mistaken, as the following extract from my book will
show. page ~ "Being obliged to submit to the a.
bominabe mistakes of witnesses, such as Keller, that |
knew no one at the asylum; Mrs. Glass, that request
ed her to let Fairbank board with her-appeared to
have private chats, &c; and Mr.. Fairbank, who stated
that he heard me say to Mr.. Cunningham that three
persons got into the hack,-all of which testimony is
utterly taSt, and the latter of which, my readers doubt
less saw was ~disproved by Mr., Cunningham himself: |
say, with all these things taken into consideration, to-
gether with some smaller mistakes ofacitnesseS, &c"
Again, it should be remembered that Mr.. Grant was
the protested owner of one of the slaves in question,
consequently, his testimony should be received with no
small degree of caution. That an abolitionist, who
has examined the slave system, and who knows full
well its c~orrupting influence upon the human heart,
should not receive the testimony OF shareholders with a
liberal share of allowance, is perfectly surprising to
me. MI. Tory says, the testimony upon which he
was condemned was false, and why should you not eX-
poet the same in my case? That part of Mr.. Grants
testimony where he afirms that | denied that | had
any thing to do with the slaves, is not true. He asked
ME where the slaves were, and answered that | did
not know, &C., which was true; | did not know where
they were.
4. You refer to my letter to my counsel after my
conviction, and also to my letter to Gov. Owsley. The
language is as follows:-" After her conviction, she
writes to one of her a~ttornies in strong censure of the
verdict, and, p. 81, asks, "Now, sir, has all been done
that can be done? Must | be driven to the last, most
notifying resort of ALTO ask a pardon Of the Gov
ernor for an offence which ! never committed" And
she couches her letter, p. IS, by affirming that she moi
only GAINS to regulate her whole conduct-her heart
her affections and her sympathies, by the laws O
God and humanity" but, "has never violated the laws
other country Soon after, she petitions the Governo
for pardon. Then she repeats that she is " %compeloj
to ask a pardon for an offence of which she is no
guilty" and declares, unequivocally, shat she Is no
guilty of the crime imputed to her" If the denial is tt
be found in this extract, 1t must be in one of the three
following sentences:-
J.. "Must | be driven to ask a pardon Tor an Offence
never committed" Is the contradiction, Or false
hood here? What was the offence for which | wal
driven to the necessity OF asking Il pardon: Let thu
Indictment answer. have stated in my book that thu
indictment upon which l was tried, and pronounce'
guilty, was, where | was indicted IS principal; so tina
the indictment which you find in the book against Nj
Fairbank, was the one upon which | was Convicted
Now, what is the offence charged against me in tia
indictment? 1t is found in the following lanruage:-
"Did wilfully and feloniously ENrlCE and sEDUcE t
leave his said owner, and to escape to parts beyond tn
limits of this State" That offence | never committed
Note: l am not charged with aiding slaves to escap,
but with seducing them to leave their master. WheI
therefore, 1 deny that l committed the offence, it is,
course, the offence charged against me in the indie
ment, which is strictly true. | never did commit thi
offence. So there is no lie here.
2. l 'have never violated the laws of my country
The laws ofmy country. what are they? Are the sla'
enactments of the south the laws of my country?
deny it, sir. And in violating them | did not viola
the laws of nv country, Those enactments requi