Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-01-13
DECISION OF JUDGE JUDsON IN THE CASE
OF LONG

II the matter of John T. Smith for the reclamation
oil an alleged fugitive from service, known by the
name oil Henry Long. - o
This proceeding has been brought into court in MR.
suance of the act OF Congress Of February r. 1T9s
and an amendatory act, 18th September, 1915 j. r.
onitil, the claimant, is resident of Virginia. and
rom his service. 10 reclaim him to that service he
mas under valid power of attorney caused the arrest
OF Henry Long, by his authorized agent and attor.
ney. ' ""o "''oi
An affidavit having been filed IN court. varran, 10
sued and the arrest was made Henry is now in Gus
lody OF the marshal of this district awaiting
the determination of this matter. No Questions
have been raised in regard to the form or valid itv
OF the papers OF the case,
The claimant has produced his evidence in sunnort
Of tat clam land the alleged fugitive by his counsel
mas produced such evidence the counsel deem
all which has been heard and considered T-9e'''
counsel, learned Id the law, have discussed with
great aoillty the questions involved in the case
aa now, devoves on the court to decide those
questions according to law and evidence
however important cause may be to the public or
an lnoNloual, no other rule ever adopted in the
aamlnlstration OF justice.
teUidence is to be aueieded that ,nust bs dn =;
even scales. ~ 00Ao ~
the law is to be interpreted, there must be no de-
code OF the civilized world.
before stating the question to be determined it
may be proper to remark, that in the argument of the
cause the learned counsel for the Defence who last ad
dressed the court did with great ankness and csndor
admit that the law OF Congress of September il l99N
oy virtue OF which this is proceeding In the
fcnit court OF the United States is in no manner in
CONSISTENT with the provisions of the Constitution or in
so lar as this and this court are concerned ts
tGg IS constitutional, VGLid and binding.
1 this admission it may well be added that every
Judge and court Of the United States, having taken up
on themselves the oath to support the Constitution
can by no possibility tail in the performance of that duty
whenever case falling within the law supported by
competent proof, is brought before them
10 co otherwise would be violation of known dutv
and pfostraon OF all laws be required of anv
Judge by single individual Of that community in
which he may be called to act
1 hese considerations and this admission slpersede
al necessity OF discussing either the constituonaiy
OF The law or its power over this court.
what remains, then, to be done in the present
case! 1t Is simply to inquire
|. Does Henry Long. by the laws of Virginia
owe service and labor to John T. Smith, the claiman
and
2 Is Henry Long. fugitive from that service,
within the meaning and intent of the ID section Of the
4h article OF the Constitution of the United States and
within the meaning Of the act of Congress above mem
toned!
These questions of fact comprehend all that this
court has TO determine.
The case is, therefore, brought down to very mar
row point, the common sense construction and weight
OF evidence.
Some of the obvious rules for the weighing of ey-
dence my be alluded to, as furnishing guide for the
mind
The means Of knowledge, the integrity and standing
OF witnesses, the probability of the story related the
liability to mistake to time, facts or circumstances
connected with the case; these all to be taken into
the account, in giving effect to the testimony of the
To return to the first question: does the person ar
rested, according to the laws of Virginia, owe service
and labor to the claimant
BY the laws OF Virginia, slavery is tolerated The
Constitution OF the United States yields its sanction to
that law, and since the organization of the Govern
ment, the Supreme Court of the United States in its
numerous decisions, have upheld the right; therefore
no subordinate tribunals call it question In
point TACT then, how stands the and the proof in
regard to the person claimed?
Dr. Wade, citizen OF Virginia. and fan intelligent
witness speaks OF his own knowledge to this court
bearing testimony that Henry was born his immediate
neshoorhood IN the town of Chri5tiansburg Va; that
his mother was slave, owned by Mr.. Anderson; that
hey were brought up together boys and men; that
ne has always known him. and him in service as
slave; that this claimant married the daughter of Mr.
Anderson; that after the death of Mr.. A the mother
and son passed into the hands Of this claimant; and
this witness adds, that he has now met Henry in New
ork, and been in conversation with him, and in see
ing him herein court, he knows him to be the same per-
son, and positively swears to his identity as he could
to his own brother.
DR.: William Parker. another citizen of Virginia.
testles that heretofore he has been in the hab. Of vs-
ing John 1. Smith, his brother-n-aw, in Russell
county Virginia, and saw there in seruice as sLaue
the person here aested that at the instance and re-
guest OF Smith, and as his agent his witness had the
letting OF Henry, in Richmond Virginia TO the house
OF Hasklns d Libby, as the Staoe of this claimant
and COLLECTED the wages, transmitting the same to his
Smith; that, while in seviceiin Rich
ond Henry was sick more than once that he was his
physician, attending him while he was sick and sat up
with him through the night. That, at the request Of
Henry ne wrote to Henry's wife and master in Russell
county.
the ports OF New FORK and Richmond have also tes-
titled that they have frequently seen this man at work
in the store of Haskns Libby, during the time stated
by Dr. Parker that since that time they have seen him
in this city, and seeing him here in court, identity him
as the same individual.
The second question is, has Henry Long escaped from
the service OF John T. Smith,
Dr. Parker again test flies, that in December, 1S4S
nenry lett Richmond; that he advertised him. that with
dlgent search he could be found there and that
since that time he has been found in the city of New
York.
On the part of the claimant, il is insisted that this
evidence should be deemed satisfactory proof compe-
tent in law.
On the other hand counsel for the defence have in
PRODUCED four Witnesses who testify that they saw
Henry in the city OF New York ia November and De-
cemoer, ls47, January oath, 1913, and from that time
down to the present.
1t is claimed, the part of the defence that the al
legged fugitive wasn not in Richmond the time sworn
to by Dr. Parker and the two shipmasters.
There is no necessary contradiction between the wit
nesses thus introduced. They only differ as to time
There is no doubt that these four witnesses have seen
Henry Long in New York, but as to the precise time
year l848 for l849.
For instance, the papes whieh bears date January
"a, i64S, was undoubtedly written in 1919: for The
witness declares that her father law sailed for Cali
Ill particular snip, Whcn sailed IN January, lS4S
as she swears when in point of fact the shin sailed in
| January, lS49.
Then as to the testimony of John Butler, who testi
hes that he saw Henry Long frequently that Henry
was constant driver OF carriage from particular
street named by him and that he often met him at a
blacksmiths shop in Centre street
One of these witnesses testifes that Henry was
waiter in hotel in New York. Another one that he
saw Henry, with walters garb and dress on board
the W ashldgton--all in the year lS49
II these things actually occurred in 1913 il would be
an easy matter for Henry inform his counsel where
lived the owner ofthis coach he drove so long, whose
captain OF the Vanderbilt in IS4S Tor whom he served
they would all have been here.
This omission goes to show that there may have been
a mistake as to the precise time when Henry was
first seen in New York and an honest mistake too
There IS another remarkable OMISSION which char