The southern press. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1850-1852, 1851-01-11

THE ExrRAplTIoN OF henry LONG

THE ExrRADlTIoN OF HENRY LONG
Us. csRcurS COUNT.
xke Hoy. Judges Judsos'and Belts presiding
- aiiegp W. from sesriee, k'osen by the "8"''
Jan. 8.-Judge Judson delivered the following
decision ia this case:
This proceeding has beer brought into court IN
pursuance Of the act Of Congress OF Feb. ~, lI55
and amendatory act Of Sept. 10. 1850 ;. =;
Smith, the claimant, is a resident OF Virginia ana
claims the restoration Of Henry, as u fugitive
from his service. To reclaim him to that service,
he has, under valid power Of attorney. unused
the arrest Of Henry, by his authorized agent and
attorney. An afadavir having been filed in court,
warrant issued, and the arrest was made. Henry
10 now in custody Of the marshal of this district
awaiting the determination Of this matter. no
questions have been raised in regard TO the form
ant has produced his evidence in support Of that
claim, and the alleged fugitive, by his counsel ,
has produced such evidence an the counsel deem
proper--all which haDbeen heard and considered .
Counsel learned in the law, have discussed with
great ability the questions involved IN the case.
And now il devolves on the court TO decide these
questions, according to law and evidence. How
ever important cause may be TO the public or an
individual, no other rule eau ever be adopted in
the administration of justice. IL evidence Is to
be weighed that must be done in even scales; II
the law il to be Interpreted, there must be no de-
parture ffom the long established rules belonging
to the code OF the civilized world. Before stating
the question now to be determined, il may be pro-
per to remark that, in the argument OF the cause,
the learned counsel for the defence, who last ad-
dressed the court, with great frankness and can
dor admitted that the law of Congress Of Septem-
Der 18th, 1850, ty virtue Of which this is now
the circuit court of the United States
is in no manner inconsistent with the provisions
OF the Constitution; or, in other words, so far as
this cause and this court concerned, this law
is constitutional. valid, and binding. ts
To this admission it may we'll be added, that
every Judge and court Of tho United States hav
ing taken upon himself the oath to support the
Constitution, can by possibility fail in the per-
Torrance Of that duty, whenever case falling
within the law, supported by competent proof, is
brought before him. To do otherwise, would be
a violation Of known duty, and prostration Of all
law, never 10 be required Of any judge by single
called to act. These considerations, and this ad
mission supercede all necessity Of discussing either
he constitutionality Of the law, or it's power
his court What remains then to be done in the
present case 1t is simply to enquire:-First.
Toes Henry Long, by the laws of Virginia, OWE
service and labor to John T. Smith, the claimant
and secondly, is Henry Long fugitive from that
section of the 4th article of the Constitution of the
United States, and within the meaning of the act
IF Congress above mentioned? These questions
IF fact comprehend all that this court has to de-
ermne. The case IL therefore brought down TO
very narrow point-the common sense construc-
ion and weight Of evidence. Some of the obvious
Jules for the weighing of evidence may be alluded
o, as furnishing guide for the mind The means
II knowledge--the integrity and standing Of wit
probability of the story relaled-the
liability to mistake as to time, facts or circum-
Itances, connected with the case-these are all to
,e taken into the account in giving effect to the
estimony Of the case. Toreturn to the first ques-
ion, does the person arrested, according to the
avs Of Virginia, owe service and labor to the
laimanti The Constitution Of the United States
Fields its sanction to that law, and, since the
,anization of the Government, the Supreme Court
# the United States, in their numerous decisions,
rave upheld the right. Therefore no subordinate
tribunal can now call it in question m
In point of fact, thes, how stands the case, and
he proof, in regard to the person claimedl DR..
Wade, a citizen of Virginia, an intelligent witness,
peaks of his own knowledge to this court, bear
ng testimony that Henry was born in his imme-
late neighborhood, in the town ofChrstianburgh,
Virginia; that his mother vas a slave, owned by
Mr.. Anderson; that they were brought up togeth-
n, as boys and men; that he has always known
lin, and seen him in service as a slave; that this
claimant married the daughter of Mr.. Anderson;
hat, after the death of Mr.. A nderson, the mother
md son passed into the hands Of this claimant;
md this witness adds that he has now met Henry
n New York, and in conversation with him, and
n seeing him here in court, he knows him to be
he same person, and positively swears to his
IDENTIFY, as he would to his own brother. DR..
William Parker, another citizen Of Virginia, testi-
les that heretofore he has been in the habit OF
,isting John T.. Smith, his brother-in-law, in
w
slave, the person here arrested, that at the in
stance and request of Smith, and AS bis agent, this
witness had the letting of Henry, in Richmond,
Virginia, to the house Of Haskins and Libbey, as
he slave of this claimant, and collected the
yes, transmitting the same to his brother-in-law,
smith, that while 80 in service in Richmond,
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 re-
quest Of Henry he wrote to Henry's wife and
master, in Russell county. Two witnesses, mas
ers of vessels sailing between the port of New
York and Richmond, have also testified that they
have frequently seen this man at work in the store
Of Haskins and 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,
Identify him as the same individual. The second
question is--has Henry Long escaped from the
service Of John T.. Smith DR.. Parker again tes-
lifes that in December, 1913, Henry left Rich
mond; that he advertised him; that, with dgent
search, he could not be found then, ard thst since
that time he has been found in the city Of New
York. 1
On the part of the claimant, it il insisted thai
this evidence should be deemed satisfactory proof
competent in law. On the other hand, the coun-
sci for the defence have introduced -four witnesses
who testify that they Henry in the city Of
New York, in November and December, 1877,
january Oath. 1915 and from that time down to
The present. 1t is claimed on the part Of the de-
fence, that the alleged fugitive was not in Rich
mond at the time sworn to by DR. Parker and the
two shipmasters. There is no necessary contra
dicton between the witnesses thus introduced
They only differ ms to time. There Is no doubt
that these four witnesses have seen Henry Long
in New York; butas to the precise time they may
be mistaken, and have substituted the year l84s
for lS49. For instance, the paper which bears
date January -, lS48, was undoubtedly written
in lS49; for the witness declares that her father
in.law sailed for California in a particular ship,
which sailed in January, 1848, as she swears
when, in point Of fact the ship sailed in January
1849. Then, as to the testimony of John Butler,
he tcstifes that he saw Henry frequently; that
Henry was a constant driver Of carriage from
particular street named by him, and that he often
met him at blacksmith 3 shop in Centre street