New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-09-02
THE TWO SLAVE CASES.

Inc Alleged shave Joun n. biIdiue fAlNfguef
60 Bondage Decision of GOmmissionrr Nel.
son in favor OF the Plaintiffs Refusal Of
an Appeal 60 the United States IaIge,-
Certihcatc demanded aud Immediately gi,su
Offer 60 sell Withdrawn unless the bar
gain shall be made in >ouia Carolina
Affidavit for assistance on thc ground Of
fears OF Rescue-parting Of she wife ana
the Husband Boldiug trans ported 20 >outh.
Carolina Behavior OF Officers and People.
Yesterday morning the case of the alleged
fugitive from South Carolina John VI Boi,img, VI.
brought 10 close. by the decision of me Comms
sloncr IN favor 81 the plaintiffs or claimants and the
transportation OF the alleged tug,tv, 90 the south a
charge of I uted states officers
The Courtroom was crowded VITA an interested
and quiet audience. and nothing whatever occurnd
to create "a supposHiou that any violent measure,
would be taken by those who wer, opposed 10 the
taking away of the mlu.
When the Count hal been duly opened. tac Com
missioner proceeded 90 read She following opia'oa
which was heard ~ respectful silence
In fhe mcsfrofI o.. ~. .atof.9 ~ John $50 lur g.
The procoa.lues IN th', case were institute uaaDf
the at al 1880 entitled au act to amend and su2os
mentary To the act ctfittd an act CO.., grciilg gt
uves from Justice Ana persons s,aplag rom tie
services OF their masters, approved Fehuan Il!
1893" They sse founded upou the t6iHG OF Ro.
bert G. Anderson. who depo>ts tl1' he resides W
the CITY at Columbia, lp ih' State of south faro
Ina that IN the month of July 1917 one John Bold
ing a mulattO a. colo,ed man. q person held 10 SET
wee or labor in he state ~ South Carolina, under
the laws thereof escaped thercirom into he state OF
Newly ORR that ihc said tNur or service oi sh' sdi
John BOldmg Wa and Is iue ~ the sad Robert e.
Anderson. and one James &. Barnett resident Of
Newark. IN the state o. NeN-Jcrscy and the sad
Robert { Anderson and the said jane, G. BAgneg
have never parted with and are sil 'niii.cd 10 he
I services or labor OF the SAID John Boiling
lron tins affidavit warrant was ISSUED, pursuant
10 the provision oi the Aforesaid hci oi 'ongftV,
and the said John Bolding was duly arrested and
brought before the officer issuing ne warrant N
order that the Truth oi The facts sct TORN 10 ne
affidavit might De legally investigated nnuag We
progress Of the inyc-t alton the ahdtft oi james
e., barnett, who did not Join M the original amca'
VT, Was read tcstiiying 10 hts concurrence N tns
proceedings, and the tatih'aton OF The ats OF NJ.
Anderson.
prelmlnar, objection is made by the council
for the defendant on the ground that James e. Bar
nett. The alleged JOINT owner, dd no' lon 20 ~
original affidavit, and that therefore, Tor augnI ma
appears he may be wiling thai the said John should
go free. To this 10 may be replied that the possessp
of one Joint owner Is The possession o BOTH and t'
the claim Of one must IN legal contemplation De- Va
clam of both as the possession acquired upon iae
claim Of one. would, IN law, 'nuro equally 70 m'
benefit ODOth and IL NAV be further Tepiitd thaiVN
lOnt owner cannot eAungulsh OF impair me figh o.
the Othcf that Nhcle one lolnt owner has gol p0''
sion OF the subject %! the Joint tenancy the 0thH
cannot dsest hlm of It, for Oue has IS good nghl
to he possession as the other, and he law lea'ese
possession where II hL.a 81 the remedy u Tue paip
out OF possession Is 20 call upon has coleman. of ~
account Of the proceed, and profits. nr Anderson
therefore. having by the institution ~ these pfoceri
ings and the spture Of the defendant reeossessfd
himself Of ms property, II his allegations be- true 10
lOInt owner can deprive him OF thai p0ss's'iO ans
If MI Barnett, IN addition 10 not Joining IN me ons
nal affidavit, had altogether protested AGAINST "a,
proceedings, do not see how Il could have imPaH''
The legal rights ~ Mr. Anderson.
But Il seems 70 me that al difficulty s dlssPtIsI
BY the subsequent concurrence OF NJ banet -
was not ssaTy Tor Mr. Barnett 20 haze loihe1 ~
the original afid 4st, nor was Il necessary lot w.,
Anderson 10 have made any AFFIDAVIT AZ tii no
might have brought the defcn liant before NE 'o'
missioner without any warrant white"f an
presume the lnfe- iilhtiOn - - Or tohNuc"A ~ ~
,l.ely the same manner. whether the altg'n hei
tive n brought 10 ~ virtue Of A warrant, of upOh
the responsibility OF thc claimant and n, IA this ease
he had been brought 40 IN the latter manner H'peA
not be cOnfeuGc1 mat the evidence Ot the tOh.W'
renee Of Nr Barnett wa impfc per Ani ihadmS'bs
Having thus disposed 81 the preliminary obfeh0l,
I come 30 he main question Of me cafe-is J"a.
BoldIng the properly Oi She claimants iafncu an
Anderson or - De- fugitive Rom scf'cf y 'hfh W
owes 10 them
Before proceeding 20 investigate The evidence a
the case ! shall endeaS0r to La down 70 pngciPe
OF law which conceive applicable 10 \.
state Of negro slavery - a. exception ~ he gen
efal CONDITION OF the inhabitants Of tins country iA
was originally limited 10 those OF The negro ftee,
whose African DlOOl was unafnllcrated Oy any Che'
admlxtufe but IN process Of tune the blood Of lh'
free became mingled with the blood 81 Iae slave.
And then, The we'll established rule Of law maj us
state OF the offspring follows tie cCndiiion o. tls
mother was brought INTO immediate apohc~t"",
that IN the care ~ the comminging ~ me olD,l ~
the free and the blood Of the sl8ye y vas iDphNH
10 ascertain whether the free blood cane ifom W.
maternal or paiernai line as II mgns have 'Vn'
from one A. well as the other aud The lh" 1Heis
fore IN favor o. liberty, raised Sc PRESUMPTION -
- I'M TO-
the person in whose veins n flowed nas ccDssqss.t
~ free. l. therefore, conceive 70 70 be sell e.,
hshed, a. COMMENDED By the counsel for t0e dsls1I
ant. and ] 30 not understand = Was cDnN0'en''t
taat where there Was free blood the DrespppIon
m favor Of liberty. and the yrDtaph resr uP'1
ne party assert lg the contrary. 1870.
Il "ds a4s0 conienced By the able cO1Dssi J" -
defendant. that order 70 rebut the pTesnmpNDn -
liberty, II Vas incumbent upon the party Assiimins
DO 50. 10 prove hneai descendant fr0fa - a.
mother hat, too, y q proposition which u 800,
me cannot De successfully cOntfoyef,ed an",
not be negro slave unless he De bora o. -
mother and where man n Presumed ~ " -.
that presumption cannot be- TeDutted except 49,
0ence satisfactory 70 The MIND. that ne - oes''
from a race OF slaves. II
II vas further con'ented oy the leaned coln-,
for the defendant, that no length Of time 49, Ia
which persOn may have submitted 10, ana 20
kept N Doncage. j. Of Itself evidence that ne y
fully he'd IN such a state (liudgin's ~ WIFE,,
HsnniDg & Mgnfori IA and u seem 20 ne - -
the authority reJed upon by the learned ccnnsel
~ sustalns The proposition and Il Is ~ con'o'n,
10 ihe results Of natural reason. and ~ eo n-n
With natural justice, that The citation o. aHH.rob
hardly ADDS strength ~ the position ior W 49,, 49,.
hat a man VIII 10 evidence but the nased i'es n
he has been outraged and oppressed for ssiei
years, j. negro slave too Tepugnani - shs r.,
sense, 10 DC entertained for a single motnen- -
IS statute 81 limitations to bar the clam 70
man holds h.s freedom By the same rsei -.
he does ms life and II clings 20 him WIZ b..
stronger tenacrty for his life he may axe ih'o -
own Lancs. bu, hls Liberty he cannot ~iis nAe
length OF time, no perpetu.iy Of outrage ca,
gish 1t. II cant be crushed or trampec on. o.
Therefore. IN the case cited blythe eafnf -
who're the ary cliimilg her freedom nae IssA
~ bondage iO> long series Of years, aD ~ 81 n
y,rsou there Vas 10 trace Of negro Of'gn, Aws
~ A. t.lr. "a, n.s. f4I vent Ilei 10 IN ~