The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-01-08
United States Circuit Court.
Before the Hon. Judges Judson and Belts

JAN: Ton the opening OF the court this mornipg,
MI Western on behalf Of the slsimsnt OF Henry
Long, the alleged fugitive, offered to produce Mr..
Stuyveeapt as Witness which objected TO by the
ceunsel for the defsnce the ground that it
preesy understood at the rising Of the court ysser
day that the testimony CON plsted on both sides
court ruled against the admission Of any further
After some preparatory remarks in regard to the
constituonaity OF the fugitive slave BILL in which
MIR. White took occasion to say that he thought II
constitutional except In one partcular-the confer
ring Of judicial power on the com missonsrs who
to hear extradition under 1.-THE learned gen
tleman inquired what the case under considsra-
ton, and what that the court was called upon
to decide? 1t pleased the national legislature, he
ssid in the year 1850 to pass act commonly dssg
mated and known the fugitive slave bi in which IL
was the design OF Congress to provide for the
ton OF fugitives from services-who held to
there. Under this act, certain DR.. John r. Smith,
OF the State Of Virginia, has by his agent into
e stsss ~ & % New YORK and In proper form ha: a.!
tive In this case owes service to him according the
laws OF Virginia. and that be has escaped thersfrom.
He asks the decision OF this court that hi, claim is
just and true and that certificate be issued for
the restitution Of the alleged slave to his claimant
This, said M White, Is the claim; and the uues-
tions growing out Of the case are two First,
oy the laws OF virginia, does Henry Long owe
whether in the meaning and oop.em nlaoD oitb
act of 1850 the ssd Henry Long escaped such SER
vice These are the questions that to be determined
In this matter. On the determination OF these ques.
tons IT Is easy to that subordinate questions Of
law and OF fact will arise and which necessarily
% okscueteu In Oruer TO arrive at decision the
case BY the act of 1850 the alleged claimant is at
liberty to purrus Of two pointed the
law for the purpose Of establishing his claim to the
services ofthe alleged fugitive Ths evidence
escape the character OF that evidence; the mode of
giving that evidences the witnesses who shall be
petent to establish the fact of the are
pointed out by the but the act gives to the
claimant two modes, either Of which he may select TO
estsbsh his claim to the services of the alleged fus
tive. Now, what are thay! First he may go before
court, or judge within the jurisdiction OF Virgins,
and there 6y evidences satisfactory to such court or
mony he may establish the fact within the jurisdiction
OF Virginia that Henry Long owed him service This
pI. por5iGn OF M the is~ was designed BY Congress to
ever be does not choose to avail himself OF the faci-
lity Of proving what the act of 1850 authorizes
him to avail himself Of and proceeds to the
sidence of the alleged fugitive in . tree state.
then lie is to establish hs claim by other and different
evidences from that which Is required as sulcsnt to
establish 1t within the state from which the alleged
fugitive escaped Mr. White here quoted the law and
read the tenth section at length. The point take,
said Mr White, To- that it within the province Of
the claimant In this case, II he fit to go before
any judge sr court and by evidence msttsr what
might be tsRchsrscter whether written, recorded
ora-ro matter how weak, or even II untrue salts
factory to the judge the court Of the ssrvcs due
and Of the escape, the judge would then certify thu
evidence taken, and q transcript OF such evidence
properly authenticated, would be conclusive within
the State Of New York. But the claimant in this
did not zee fit to adopt this course but he by
his agent into this State and makes his claim this
man. Having done so he Is bound to establish tive
facts first that Henry Long owes ser vice to him and
secondly that he e,csped from such service He
show these things by proof not only satisfactory to
the court but competent In law MIR. White then pre-
c.eded to argue ~ great length the two questions
whether Long owed service TO the elamaut in this
case, or, in other words, whether he is Dr. smth's
fugitive slave and he IA whether he has been proved
to be suoh by competent evidence He reviewed in full
the evidence of all the witnesses whom the claimant
bad summoned and insisted that aceor ding to the
rules OF evidence as laid down In the authorities IL
should be discarded being but secondary and that
ought to be thrown out because according to what
the have them elves stated there is better
evidence behind. Tlts point argued with
ability by Mr. White Counsel also contended that
there evidence to prove that Long was tn pro
perty OF Dr Smith. There distinctive record
proof hdduced and In the absence OF that better eyi
denos which The law requires, the law construes
jecs the claim. Quotes from the laws Of Virginia
pages 526 b42 6a7, 5Ss.l 1t seemed to him (counssD
very clear that DR. Wades testimony Is to be relied
upon the legal title Of the party the admins
traitors OF Mr.. Anderson, aud Rev. DR.. Smith, the
claimant must show how he came into the possession
OF him He Is not 1t liberty to resort 10 the acts
admissions OF Long, but he must prove his csirn by
evidence competent in law. cit.s from Judge Griers
opinion The cloimsLt has failed saG Mr.. White t.
produce the opl ly admissible evidence II in existence
III DIR. Smith purchased this man. IL WAS not
cessary that formal bill OF rae should be passed. but
still the Law requires evidence Of the ssle According
TO the evidence adduced here he In the pos
session ofDr Smith, once be was in Dr. Smiths
house IL Virginia, frequently hold slaves for
frequently They hired cut Go party-he then has
no title 10 hun. Which thsn was the case here, Why
not prssune tbst IL wa, hiring out 70 Doctor smith
There is evidence Ct his being sold to him. They
were bound TO assume that be hired out because
there Is no evidences OF bill OF sale In an action OF
assunpS We 90 hot guess money out OF the pocket OF
mat. nto the pocket Of another. Aud should tbey
do so In . OF this kind where than money
more than hie-ths liberty OF a man, vas at stake
There is evidence, com petent In law that Henry
Long 10 the property Of John smith. Counsel re-
t,rred TO the evidence and said that when there Is
coIfict IN the testimony oenht OF arisea and
the bentht OF tse doubt must be given to the alleged
fugitive Might 1t not have been that Doctor smith
mt this man to Richmond,ie Ter the purpose OF being
hired tor the h.neNt OF the trtate Tt may have
been, at the request OF all the parties to the
They found Long keeping confectioners shop In
Chi taIbUg, under the ryisorshp OF the admin
irator OF the estate ana the presumption B rational
that the Administrator hired him cut Tor the benefit
Of tIs estate. ead II he lsbor he IL TO the
sdmiri-tistor, and not to John T. Smith. Again. at
the time Re IL alleged TO have escaped from RshmoDd
BE was in the service of Hashins i Lihbey who had
entire consrol over him; and though We have evi
dtnce that he was sent on TO New York by them yet
may AS well presume that they did "a that they
70 hhskiEs Libhey, but there Ia sVi isnce here
~ them; there T. = failure to produce them, and
presumption Is TO be held that he here With
out their sanctions wb re the presumption Is adverse
to the party sccuica We are not TO discard Il.
Countei here referred to the t.'timony Of four rit
for the defence said thai the Court was Of
vested With arbitrary power 90 discard IT.
The Court unmarked that IL could not discard any
testimony that ~ believer.
Mr.. White conceded this point and then proceed
cd to nstst the case Iva Philadelphia where a gom.
missioner arbitrarily rspudiste the testimony Of two
coored witre,sra :pr esrthly reason but becsuse
they were bisek; aud supyosinS that similarity Of
color tuperi induced perjury and the Gommi.i0uer be-
eyng Tn" testimony tone white man sent the alleged
fugitive to slavery. when the supposed
him he raid he had nothing TO do with him; he never
had seen hi@ before and the alleged slave sent
back 20 phia, the Con- missioner htvipx
ceived SO Tor sending him 20 bondage Mr. White
then alluded to the number OF witnesses for tho ds
fence, Of unim pssched, and he should presume
impcacbsbls character, and concluded hy eioqutniiy
beseschng the Court To look 70 the evidence he did
not invoke that sympathy which all must feel
but be invoked justice, tor he vas persuaded that
Henry Long did not ows service TO John 4. smith.
Mr. George Wood on rising reply on behalf OF tho
claim ant said there but confederation pre-
tnted in this which the court called upon to
decide and hat IL, whether Henry Long service
TO John T. Smith and II 90. whether Henfy Long ss
capped from that tervce ans Il nov here before the
fugitive from labor This issue involves identity
II he Ia not the tsme Henry Long who service,
then this docs Hot it. The counsel on the
other eide told them that ths had created great
Excitement His valnahle serrines have been