The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-09-05

fession to the case Of the United States Vs. xAs
Executors Of Stephenson I McLean's Rep asa.
No other objection was taken to the iatFsdue-
The counsel for The claimant then produ .ed the
son of the claimant, who, on ais direct examina-
ton, distinctly identified Daniel as the fugitive
The counsel for Daniels then proceeded to oross
examine the witness, to the time of the purchase
of Daniel, the price paid for him. the business in
which he lad been employed, AMI the place fren
which he escaped
The claimants counsel objected TO the introduc-
tion Of this evidence, the ground that on these
points the record was conclusive; and Daniels
counsel stated that they offered such testimony on
the question of identity, and commended that on the
cross examination OF q witness it was proper. The
commissioner decided that upon the question OF
identity, AID that only. such testimony was com.
petent, and might be given.
On his REORGANIZATION the witness testified, in
substance, that his father had purchased Daniel
from man AIMED Prayer, and had agreed to pay
$7uO dollars for HIN; that ut the time Of tha
purchase Daniel running the rivoc, and after
the purchase his father had hired him out in Louis
Vile That about four months after the purchase,
inc boat on which Daniel was, In the capacity Of
COOK made trip to Cincinnati, and rom that plaoe
Daniel escaped, as he believed; that the boat did
not run regularly to Cincnn ati.
Ibis was all the evidence given
The counsel for Daniel coutended that Daniel
was proved to be free man, and had ESQ aped from
Cincinnati and therefore he could not be sent back
to Kentucky
Inc C0mmls sl0ner OeclueN tnat ne was bound bT
the record, which the act Of Congress declared
." shall be held and taken 70 be full and conclusive
evidence of the fact of escape and that the service
or labor Of the person escaping is due to the party
look behind the record the proof would not sustain
the position of Daniel counsel, for it did not
warrant the as sumption that Daniel had been taken
to free State with the assent Of his master. For
these be should decide against the objection
taken by Daniels counsel.
In the course Of the argument one OF Daniels
counsel stated the law to be, that when mastee
comes with, or permits his slsv to be carried to,
q free state, that moment the slave becomes Free
From the proposition thus broadly stated, the
commissions dissented, and said that, IN bis
opinion, there were cases in which master
might take his slave in or through 3 free state,
and that act alone would not EN- ancipate him
It is this rem ark of the commissioner Tin most
OF the papers incorrectly reported), which has
elected criticism, and the citation Of cases to
show, what every one kno that slavery is local
institution, ard cannot be extended BY the re-
moyal of masters and slaves into the free States.
In the qualified sense in which the commissioners
remark was given, he adheres to it as good Law;
but, whether in this the commissioner vas right
or wrong, mis- remark was mere o6iter di;fum,
aud had nothing to do wi the decision Of
The counsel for Daniel then stated that there
were two witnesses board the boat from which
Daniel was taken, who, they were informed, were
material for Daniel the question Of identity, and
that a messenger had been sent for them. The
CON missioner said he would wait reasonable time
for them to come in while waiting, the counsel for
Daniel asked the counsel for the claimant to con-
sent to adjournment of the case, stating that
their client much exhausted and Injured by the
wounds he had received, and that, if necessary,
they would call medical witnesses On the point
The claimants counsel refused to consent to an ad
journment and Daniels counsel did not call any
me deal witnesses, notwithstanding the surgeon
who dressed his wound was in court.
The commissioner, however, twice said to Daniels
counsel, that if either Of them would say that, 10
their opinion, the interest % Daniel his condition,
required postponement Of the examination, hs
would adjourn until the next day. Both counsel
declined to make such a statement
The commissioner, having waited half an hour,
and no witnessing appearing, determined to pro-
c'ed, and decided Il at the record being before him,
the ouly question of fact, whether Daniel
was sufficiently identified as the man described in
the record Upon this point the proof was decisive
and upcortradcted, and he should therefore mako
the order that Daniel be sent back to Kentucky.
That order was accordingly made
With the arrest, the coinmi. sioner Ct course had
no connection that duty was discharged by the
marshal and his assistants.
K. SarH. L. :. Commissisaerf
BUEFALo, A ugust %, 1854.