Richmond daily times. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1853, 1851-09-05
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE.
The Decision in the Case and the Deliuery of the
Prisoner,
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT.
Before MIR. Commissioner Nelson.

Prisoner.
UNITED STATES COMMISSIONERS COURT.
Before MIR. Commissioner Nelson.
New York, Sept. H.
AT ii O'Clock this forenoon, Mr.. Commissioner Mel
son took his in the U. S. Court room tor the pur-
pose of delivering his decision the OF John Boil
ding, claimed as a slave by Barnett d Anderson, OF
Columbia, South Carolina. The room was crowded
almost 10 exclusion, and goody array OF colored folks
thronged the galleries.
The Commissioner then read his decision as fol-
lows
In the matter of the reclamation of john Boldng,
&c.
The proceedings of this case were instituted under
the of 1850, entitled can Act to amend and sup
Elementary TO The act entitled An Act respecting Flu.
glives from Justice, and persons escaping from the
wees OF their masters, approved February H. 1881
They are founded upon the affidavit of Robert c. An
derson who deposes that he resides in the city of CO.
umbla, 10 the State OF South Carolina; that, in the
month OF July, lS47, John Bolding mulatto, or
coored man, person held 10 service or labor in the
State OF South Carolina under The laws thereof eca-
ped hereiIom into the State Of N. ork; that the said
abor or service OF the said John Boldng was and is
due to the said Rober! c. Anderson and one James G.
Barnett, resident OF Newark, in the State of New
Jersey; and the said Robert G. Anderson aud the said
James e. Barnett have parted with and are still
entitled TO the services labor of the said John Bold
| ing.
Upon this affidavit warrant was issued pursuant to
the provision OF the aforesaid act of Congress- and the
said John Boldng was duly arrested and brought be-
fore the officer issuing the warrant in order that the
truth of the facts forth in the affidavit might be lie.
ealy investigated During the progress OF the invesli.
| CATION, the affidavit OF James G. Barnett who
did not join the original affidavit, was read test
tying to his concurrence in the proceedings and the
| ratification Of the acts of Mr. Anderson
A preliminary objection is made bv the counsel for
the defendant on the ground hal James g. Barnett the
alleged JOINT owner, did not Join in the original afda-
VT, and that therefore, for augh that appears he may
be willing that the said John should go free To this
may be replied that the possession OF Joint owner
the possession OF both and the claim of one must
IN ega contemplation be the claim OF boh as The
possession acquired upon the claim of one, would in
law equatyEto the benefit of both. and il NAV
extlngulsh or impair the right of the other that
whefe one JOINT owner has got possession OF the sub
lect OF te Joint tenancy, the other divest him
OF IT, Tor one had as good right the possession
me other, and The law leaves the possession where it
hnds 1t; the remedy of the partyaout possession is to
eau upon MS co tenant tor account OF the proceeds
ana pronts. Mr. Anderson, therefore, having by the
institution OF these proceedings and the capture OF
the defendant, re-possessed himself OF his property,
his allegations be true, Joint deprive him
OF that possession; and il Mr.. Barnett in add lon 10
not joining IN the original affidavit had altogether pro-
tested against the proceedings, do not see how
1t could have impaired the legal rights of Mr.. Ander-
son.
But it to me that all difficulty is dissipated by
the subsequent concurrence of Mr.. Barnett 1t was
not necessary for Mr. Barnett to have Joined in the
original af1davlt, nor was 1t necessary for Mr. Ander
son 10 have made any affidavit at ALL He might have
brought the defendant before the Commissioner with
out any warrant whatever and presume the investi.
CATION is be conducted IN precisely the same man
ner whether the alleged ugi live is brought up by vir-
tue OF warrant, or upon the responsibility of the
claimant; and II, in thu case he had been brought up
III the latter manner, it could not be commended that the
evidence OF the concprrence of Mr.. Barnett i'm
proper and inadmissble
Having thus disposed of the preliminary objection. T
come to the main question the case is John Bold.
ing the property OF the claimants Barnett & Ander-
son, or ls he fugitive from service which he ovxes IN
them!
Before proceeding to investigate the evidence in the
case, shall endeavor to lay down the principles of law
which conceive applicable 10 it.
A state OF negro slavery is an execution TO the GEN.
era condition OF the inhabitants of this country and
originally limited to those OF the negro race whose
African blood was unaduerated by any other admix-
ture; but IN process OF time the blood of the free be-
came mingled with the blood Of the slave And then
the well established rule of law that the state of the
offspring follows the condition Of the mother, was
brought into immediate application, So that in the case
oithe conming ling of the blood of the free and the
blood OF the slave, it important to ascertain
whether the free blood from the maternal or pa
terna line and it might have come from one as we'll
the other and the law therefore, in favor OF liberty
raised tie presumption that the free blood came from
the maternal side, and that the person in whose veins
it flowed was consequently free l. therefore, conceive
it to be well established commended by the counsel
for the defendant, and do not understand was con-
troverted that where there is free blood the presume
ton is in favor OF liberty, and The onus propandi, rest
upon the party asserting the contrary.
1t was also contended by the able counsel for the
deendent, that in order to rebut the presumption off
berty, It was incumbent upon the party assuming to
do so, to prove neal descent from slave motber.
that, too, Is proposition, which seems to me can
not be successfully controverted; man cannot be- a
negro slave, unless he be born OF slave mother. and
where man is presumed to be free, that presumption
cannot be rebutIed except by evidence satisfactory to
the mind, that he is descended from race of slaves
1t was further commended by the learned counsel for
the defendant that no length oil time during which
person may have submitted to, and been kept in bon.
dage is OF itself evidence, that he is righully held in
such state tHudeius vs. Wright, Hennng and Nun
ford 1919 and seems to me that the authority relied
upon by The learned counsel fully sustans the prom ISL
ton; and it comfortable to The results of paural
eeson, and so consonant with natura Justice that the
citation OF authorities hardly adds slreng the pos.
ton, for to hold that man, with evidence but the
naked fact that he has been outraged and oppressed
Tor series OF years, Is negro slave repupnant
The mora sense, to be entertained for single mo-
mont. There is no statute OF limitations to bar the
claim to liberty.
A man holds his freedom by the same tenure that
he does his lie; and tclngs to him with even stronger
tenacty; tor his life he may take into his own hands
but his liberty he ALLEVIATE; no length of time no
perpetuty OF outrage can exlinguish it, 1t cant be
crushed or tramped out OF him Therefore, in the
cited by the learned counsel where the party claim
ing her freedom had been held in bondage for long
series OF years. and in whose person there no trace
OF negro origin, and in whose veins no witness
had venured to say that he could the blood of
OF slaves, twas justly held that the naked fact of
continued possession, which was nothing more than
continued outrage was altogether Insufficient and in
adequate proof.
And it further seems to me to be proposition esta-
bshed by the case referred to, that no length of
possession Is sufficient to establish The existence OF ne
gro blood. cannot see how the hacked fact of long
possession is any greater evidence that man is a
negro than 1t Is that he is an Englishman French
The other case Adele VS. Beaugatd Martin 1921
cited by defendants counsel simply proves that persons
OF colorare presumed to be tree, and in order estab
lish claim to them it must appear that they have been
held as slaves; proposition which is not controyer.
ted.
Having thus laid down the principles of law which
consideration OF the evidence. But let us first Law
down the propositions which must be established by
the evidence on the part of the claimant before they
can entltle themselves to the certificate, which they
seek.
consider it incumbent upon the claimants 10 establish
the following three propositions:
l. That John Boding has African blood in his veins.
and is therefore capable Of being slave