The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-02-23
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE.
Examination OF KIixur Wright for AID, M
tne Escape OF Fugitive Slave at Boston.
From the Boston Journal, Feb 2ol

kind which has ever been examined under the rec en-
/ law.
The Commissioner Immediately proceeded to give h,
decision In this important and interesting fol
This examination, ss It comes before me- is a urs
imnary inquiry by force OF the act Of August 49, lss
9th U 3. Statutes at Large 6l7 giving power to tn
Commissioners Circuit Court Of the United State
for any crime offence against the United States I
arrest Inn prison or bail the party charged the
may be- tor trial before such court the United State
Hs has cognizance of the offence To unla wfuly oh
struot the process the OF law is
fence generally bat the crime here charged in the
plant upon the defendant is aiding assisting and
ting the person therein named who was lawfully hell
In the custody Of tho Marshal of the United States
under arrest ss fugitive from service labor pur
suast TO the act OF September l8, 1850 chapter 70
And the offence created by that Act in the 7th
on Is rescuing or attempting to such fugitive
rom service or labor from the custody Of the
mis- agent or attorney or other lawfully assist
ing when so arrested to the authority given
IN the or aiding aoetting or assisting such per
son, directly or indirectly in escaping from euch
claimant his agent attorney person or
sone legally authorized aforesaid That is any per-
son legally authorized BY this Act to hold restrain
such person in custody. 1t is made the duty OF the
Commissioners having concurrent jurisdiction the rein
with the Judges the and District Courts of thu
United States to issue process under this act and
the Marshsls and their Deputies to execute all such
warrants and precepts when to them directed. The
prcof in the pTesent casA is THAT warrant duly
Issued upon the proper preliminary evidence for the
srrest OF one shadrsch coored person. alleged to be
from service labor in the State Of Virginia ac
to the laws oftbat State claimed by the agent
OF attorney OF the person to whom such labor
vice was due. And the Marshal makes his return,
that In obedience to the warrant he had arrested the
within named shsdrach and then had hi wilton the
DAY OF an alleged before the ex
animation IL has been objected the defence that the
warrant ana return Of the officer are not
oept nthe which he return was made But thew
arc clearly conclusive of the fact Of in that
and thus prove that at the the alleged rescue
party claimed and held in legal custody proper
omeer under lawful warrant held under ar
reet pursuant to the Act of Sept lS 1850 While so
arrested as an alleged fugitive, and after he
nittsd by the Commissoner to close custsdy in the
bands OF the Marshal for the very proper purpose of
giving time to prepare bis defence against the claim
upon his person, and while for the any other
place OF custody provided by the United States,
he was restrained and kept in the u s. Cours,
room, mob burst into the room. and. against the
resistance OF the officers rescued the prisoner The
objection taken and much insisted on BY the learned
counsel for the defendant is that the prosec aton
must prove sirmatively that the prisoner rescued
while under arrest was the Identical shadrach claim
ed and that he held TO and labor by the
laws OF Virginia This would in yove the trial Of the
question OF claim in the absence of the person claim
ed 20 that In the hearing charge Of tn. offence OF
rescue the trial of the CLAIM ch was pted
BY the escape must irst be disposed Of before party
eoule De prosecuted Tor aiding in eucn escape The
hearing oil The claim Is to some extent judicial and
determines the matter but the present ny
preliminary to discharge or holding the party to
swer. Hence. II the ground taken be a correct con-
structon OF the Law, 1t would to follow that
every Of an arrest, a rescue nav be made wit b
impuniy becau,e the trial of the claim the service
could not be determined after the escape II the
objection does not go to this extent, but means
peTsop rescued was fugitive from service or labor
and claimed such tnat evidence ell the pur
poses OF this hearing is found In the warrant aud
turn tie identity OF the party claimed Is connected
with the arrest and return by the testimony OF the
Deputy Marshal that the rescued tha per-
son srrtsed under the warrant. The sixth section OF
the act refers to the person who IL clsed before ad
judcation ss sush alleged fugtive,n and this Is his
relation, until the hearing upon the claim shall be
concluded The next following section makes IL an
oftrce TO rescue such fugitive" while arrest
sdn in pursuance to the authority given by the act
SyilAUca fro h. ant
cords OF the court in Virginia in pursuance aot
ard TIE testimony OF Mr. Commissioner Curtis and OF
theDefuty marshal are satisfactory te my mind, in
making out p'TnG (aeie on this point. The DE-
fendsnt able mig have rsbuttcd Il By proof tha.
the ~ropg person was arrested or that he was not
fugitive under tae statute but such evidence has
been offered and the escape of the alleged fugitive BY
the aid q those sho would PROBABLY have defended
him on that ground. as they bad lawful right do
lad fuch defence besn available 4. 10 be received at
least In preliminary Inquest. tending to prove
that no such ground could be taken The objection,
ofsny force may be urged la other form OF trial
where the consruction of the Law Is TO b. judcialy
settlsd by competent trbunsl but in this prelimi
nary hearing t is not my duty TO set aside the Law
upon moe critical or technical objections. l hold
therefore that the body of the crime the offence
contemplated by the Eth section IL sufficiently proved
Inc only remaining inquiry is, whether the Offences
charged Is sufficiently made ont against the defendant
snd en ms question have no poser to decide tae IS
tss In ell preliminary mstters in hearing before
smiping msgtrste, not having full jurisdiction
the offence whether there L. sufce evidence send
the party 10 the proper tribuns tor before
the arand jury My decision therefore. can have no
eject upon IL. guilt or innocence Of tn. defendant
and only determine whether he shall or shall not
be held for trial before court OF the United states
having eognizsnce OF the alleged offence In coming
to decEi1D an bound TO take the manifest weight
OF the evi6s II II make out such in the best
discretion Of the magistrate, would uirs and auho.
rizs Grand Jury TO find true bill OF indctmsn and
am obliged TO come 10 that conclusion, without any
doubt or hssitsncy In my own judgment. The
Tor this conclusion 1t s Unnecessary to state with mi
nutensss The defendant present a the time the
lsv less act Of violence comm itted Whether the
evidence TENDS 70 open any previous concert design
is mot material IL is raid that he was present
porter aud the nature aHd potsnce of the duty Of
q true reporter have been well stated by the learned
counsel Tor the defence But the tim. and the place
snd the rtfatal To depart, not with IN the
vince Of reporter and " that privilege was used
10 defy the lsw and its osers and to encourage the
escap. OF pri'oner 10 would be rather sgsravson
than Jus'iheston or the offence. The evidence on
this point. and the ctfpdants address to the prison
er regarded In its bearing on the defendant osly
tending 70 show dirregsrd of. and predisp .ition
to violate the Law of the land In this particular sw
which, 30 long ss emsns lsw the statute book
ana y not pronounced void by the constitutional tri
bunsl IL biDoibg like all LAYS pom good citizens aud
must be entrcsd aganst every who IL not contu
TO be COED citizen at lssst 40 far a. to leave a Tone
the only thing this Law requires OF him. asd that
" not to r-sist with violence uivance the pro
cess or the sh'cers Of the law lie 10 not required
TO do rny act 20 aid In the execution of thi. Law
provided there II resistance TO lawful proces,
TO the ofrcers OF the law But " he to inter-
pret this any oner Law for himself and carries out
that ,elf in'i pretstion by breach Of law aiding
that hr'ach In others the con stitutsd tribunals as
eorservstora 81 the p-sce must b. called upon to n
tfpr.t his Interpretation, and apply the punishm Mt
provided Tor the offence The DEFENDANT IL not held
snsser for bis opDou, has been suggested for the
defence Every citizen may hold aud express his
opinion for against partiou ulsr Law and take all
lawful means 10 change such Law to def all who
are hello TO answer ~ Bot " he carries his opinions
into an overt act against a- be mpst that
sct. a. the Law holds all to answer ~ho violate its
tsnctio,s In government OF the people, where all
lev u made or unmsd- by the majority the citizen
who kno~ingly and wilfully Violates Law commits .
crime sgsntt himself as well a. sgsnst society And
While he claims the general protection Of all Lag Tor
the security Of his property aud person he can have
no right under that protection which government Of
levs evee bin 10 violate particular Law which he
may dhspprovs, and thereby tn. example for rsn.
deinp tocety unsafe BY bringing the aws OF the Ian
into contempt These soggestions not imm ediste-
ly applicable TO the case and have had no weight In
the coDclu,iou hsve been obliged TO cons 20; but
they are not tnapplicsble to the hn. of srgume mt
adopted ty one Of the defendsnts counsel or un
To the st.ct 81 this caee In s bsariog the
eers srd the duties that surround cirens of the
Commonwealth and Of The Union. VI conclusion In
fsidrg MP the compisnt tr dpterm psinlv nv the