The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1851-01-10

u. s. COURT, Wednesday Judge Judson presiding -
Judge Judson this day read the following decision in the
alleged slave case and ordered that he should be
dered 10 the claimant:
In the matter Of John Smith, for the reclamation of
alleged fugitive from service, known BY the name OF
This proceeding has been brought into court in pur-
Of the act OF Congress OF February ~ l7ss and
| an amendatory act OF 18th September, 1850.
Said Smith, the claimant is resident OF Virginia. and
claims The restoration OF Henry Long as fugitive from
his service To reclaim him to that service he has under
valid power OF attorney, caused the arrest OF Henry
Long by his authorized agent and attorney.
An affidavit having been filed in court warrant issued
and the arrest made Henry is in custody Of the
maj shall OF the district awaiting the determination of this
matter.
No questions have been raised in regard the form
validity of the papers OF the case
The claimant has produced his evidence in support OF
that claim, and the alleged fugitive. by his COUNSEL has
produced such evidence as the counsel deem proper all
which has been heard and considered
Counsel learned in the law have discussed with great
ability the questions involved IN the case
And devolves on the court 10 decide these ques.
tons according TO law and evidence
However important cause may be to the public or an
individual, other rule ever adopted in the admins
ii evidence is to be weighed that must be done in even
scales
Ii the law is to be interpreted there must be depart
from the long established rules belonging to the code
OF the civilized world
Before stating the question now to be determined, II
may be proper TO remark that, in the argument OF the
cause the learned counsel for the defence who last ad-
dressed the did with great rankness and candor
admit that the law of Congress, OF September 1880, BY
virtue OF which this now proceeding IN the circuit
OF the United States, is IN no manner inconsistent
with the provisions Of the constitutions or IN other words
so far this and this court concerned, thus TAU
is constitutional, ualid, and binding
To this admission il may well be added That every Judge
and court OF the United States, having taken upon them
selves the oath support the constitution can by no pos
sibty fail in the performance OF that duty whenever
falling within the law supported by proof Is brought
before him. To do otherwise wonld be violation OF
known duty and proslraton Of all law never to be re-
CURED of any Judge by single individual OF that commu
nifty in which he may be called to act
These considerations and this ADMISSION superseue an
necessity of discussing either the consuonality OF the
law, or its power over this court
What remains then, to be done in the present case II
! Is simply 10 inquire
lst Does Henry Long, by the laws Of Virginia, owe
service and labor to John T. Smith, the claimant! and
I'd. Is Henry Long fugitive from that service within
the meaning and intent the I'd section OF the 4th arl
Gle of the constitution OF the United States, and within
the meaning OF the act OF Congress above mentioned
The questions of fact comprehend all that this court
| has to determine.
The case is therefore brought down TO very
dence.
Some OF the obvious rules for the weighing Of evidence
may be alluded TO as furnishing guide Tor the mind
The means of knowledge the integrity and standing
OF witnesses, the probability OF the story related, the La
bity to mistake as TO time, facts or circumstances con
neced with the case-hese are all to be taken into the
account in giving effect to the testimony OF the case
To return to the first question Does the person ar
rested according to the laws Of Virginia owe service and
1 labor TO the claimant!
By the laws of Virginia slavery is tolerated The con
su,ion OF the United States yields lis sanction to that
law and since the organization OF the government the
Supreme Court OF the U s. in their numerous decisions
have upheld the right therefore subordinate tribunals
call it in question In point OF fact then, how
stands the and the proof IN regard 10 the person
claimed
Dr. Wade citizen OF Virginia, intelligent witness,
speaks OF his knowledge TO the court. bearing tes
iimony that Henry born in his Immediate nelghboI-
hood, in the town OF Christ anouIg 10 virginia maj ms
mother was a slave, owned by Mr. Anderson, and that
they brought together as boys and men, that he
has always known hum and .eea HIM IN service AZ
Anderson that alter the death OF Mr.. Anderson, he
mother and passed into the hands OF this claimant
and this witness adds that he has met with Henry
in New York and IN conversation with him. and in see
ing him in court, he knows hun TO be the same person,
and positively TO his identity as he could to he
| own brother.
Dr. VIM Parker, another citizen OF Virginia, testhes
that heretofore he has been in the habit OF visiting John
T. Smith, his brother law, in Russell county, Virginia,
and service, a slave the person here ar
rested that the instance and request Of Smith, and as
his agent this witness had the letting OF Henry IN Rich
mond, Virginia. to the house OF Haskins and bbey, as
the slave OF this defendant, and collected the wages,
transmitting the TO his brother law, Smith
that while 80 in service in Richmond, Henry was sck
that that he was his physician, attending him
night that at the request OF Henry he wrote to Henys
wife and master in Russell county
! Two Witnesses masters of vessels sailing between
the port OF New York and Richmond, have also testified
that they have frequently the man at work IN the
store of Haskns Libbey, 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 1. Smith 2
/ Dr. Parker again testifes that in December lsiS
Henry left Richmond that he advertised him that with
digent search he could not be found there and that
since that time he has been found in the city OF New
York.
On the part OF the claimant is asserted that this EVIL
dence should be deemed satisfactory proof competent in
law.
On the other hand counsel for the defence have intro
duced four Witnesses who testified that they saw Henry
in the city of New York in November and December,
isa7, January AZ, lsis and from that time down to the
present.
II claimed on the part OF the defence that the al
legged fugitive was not in Richmond at the time sworn TO
| by Dr. Parker and the two shipmasters.
There is no necessary contradiction between The wit
There is no doubt that these four witnesses have seen
Henry Long in New York; but TO the precise time
they may be mistaken, and have substituted ls4s Tor
s49 For instance the paper which bears date January
"a, Is4s, undoubtedly written in ls49 for the wit
declares that her father law sailed for California
in particular ship which sailed in January, 1885, she
swears when in point OF fact the ship sailed in January
/ 1S49.
Then, 10 the testimony OF John Butler: he testifes
that he saw Henry Long frequently; that Henry was
constant driver of a carriage from particular street
named by him. and that he often met him al black
smiths shop in Centre street One Of these witnesses
another one that he saw Henry with bis walters
garb and dress board the vanderb-all in the
year lS4S.
II These things actually occurred in ls4s il would be