The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1851-01-10
THE REPU BLIC.
Decision OF Judge Judson In the Case OF
Long.

had been claimed as a fugitive slave, surrendering
said Long as fugitive from service or labor
In the matter of John T. Smith for tho reclama-
ton of an alleged fugitive from service known by
the name of Henry Long.
This proceeding has been brought into court IN
pursuance of the act of Congress of February ~,
1888, and amendatory act, 18th September,
1915 j. Il. Smith, the claimant, is resident oil
Virginia, and claims the restoration Of Henry Long
as ugive from his service To reclaim him 10 that
service he has, under a valid power of attorney,
caused the arrest of Henry, by his authorized agent
and attorney.
| An affidavit having been filed in court, warrant
| issued, and the arrest was made Henry Is 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 or validity OF the
1 papers of the case
The claimant has produced his evidence in sup
port of that claim, and the alleged fugitive, 10y his
! counsel has produced such evidence the counsel
deem proper, all which has been heard and con.
| sidered.
Counsel, learned in the law, have discussed with
great ability, the questions involved IN the case
And now it devolves on the court to decide those
| questions according to law and evidence.
However important cause may be to the pub
| lie, or individual, no other rule was ever adopt
ed in the administration OF justice.
If evidence is TO be ,reghed that must be done in
even scales.
If the law is to be interpreted, there must be no
| departure from the long-estabished rules belong
| ing to the code Of the ciyllzed world,
Before stating the question now 70 be determined,
ii may be proper 10 remark, that IN the argument
of the cause the learned counsel for the defence,
who last addressed the court did, with great frank
and candor admit that the law OF Congress OF
September IS, 1850, by virtue of which this is
now proceeding in the circuit court of the United
States, is in manner inconsistent with the provi-
sons of the Constitution in SO far as this cause
and this court concerned, this lGtc is constitu
iional, rrlid and binding.
To this admission it may well be added that every
Judge and court of the United States, having taken
upon themselves the oath to support the Constitu-
ton, can by no possibility fail in the performance
of that duty, whenever falling within the
law, supported by competent proof, Is brought be-
fore them.
To do otherwise would be a violation of known
duty, and prostration of all law, never to be re-
quired Of any judge by single individual OF that
community in which he may be called TO act
These considerations and this admission super
sede all necessity OF discussing either the consutu-
tionaty of the law or its power over this court.
What remains, then, 10 be done in the present
case2 1t is simply to inquire
/. Does Henry Long, by the laws OF Virginia,
owe service and labor to John t. Smith, the claim
ant and
, 3 Is Henry Long fugitive from that service,
within the meaning and intent OF the "a section OF
the 4th article of the Constitution of the United
States, and within the meaning OF the act OF Con-
gress above mentioned.
These questions of fact comprehend all that this
court has to determine.
The case is therefore, brought down 10 very
narrow point. the common sense construction and
| weight of evidence.
Some of the obvious rules for the weighing o.
evidence may be alluded TO, as furnishing guide
for the mind.
The means of kno,cifdge, the integrity and stand
ing of witnesses, the probability OF the story re
lated the liability to mistake as toime facts, OF
D. circumstances connected with the case; these are
all be taken into the account, in giving effect tc
the testimony of the case.
r, To return to the first question, does the person
arrested, according TO the laws OF Virginia, owe
service and labor TO the claimant.
BY the laws Of Virginia, slavery is tolerated
>; The Constitution of the United States yields II.
y sanction TO that law, and since the organization o
n the Government, the Supreme Court of the Unitec
he States, in its numerous decisions, have upheld tn,
right; therefore subordinate tribunals can nov
& call it in question In point OF TACT then, how
\ stands the and the proof in regard to the per
son claimed?
b. Dr. Wade, a citizen ofVirgina, and an intelligen
witness speaks of his own knowledge to this court
bearing testimony that Henry born in his i'm
" mediate neighborhood, in the town of Christians
2 burg, Va; that his mother was slave, owned b.
Mr. Anderson; that they were brought up togethe
as boys and men; that he has always known him
nj and seen him in service as slave; that this caiman
g. married the daughter of Mr. Anderson; that afte
q the death OF Mr.. a. the mother and son passed int
A. the hands of this claimant; and ths witness adds
N shat he has now met Henry in New York, and beer
IN conversation with him, and, In seeing him her
,e in court he knows him to be the person, ant
j. positively TO his identity "a he could to hi
"A own brother.
y Dr. William Parker, another citizen of Virginia
testifes that heretofore he has been in the habit o
Of visiting John T. Smith, his brother IN law In Rus
eel county, Virginia and there in service as
slape the person here arrested that at the instanc
II and request of Smith, and as his agent, this witnes
n had the letting of Henry, in Richmond Virginia
v to the house of Haskins and Libby, as The 'dpe
IN this claimant, and collected the wagce transmit
ting the same to his brother in law, Smith; that
while in service in Richmond, Henry was sicl
more than once; that he his physician, attend
r ing him while he SICK and sat up with hin
through the night. That, at the request Of Henry
he wrote to Henrys wife and master in Russell
county.
TWO witnesses masters of vessels sailing be
tween the ports of New York and Richmond, have
= also testified that they have frequently seen thi
= man at work in the store of Haskins Libby, dur
ing the time stated by DR.. Parker that since tina
Z time they have him in this city, and seeing
a him here in court, identity him as the same lndl
h vidual.
e The second question is, has Henry Long escaped
g from the service of John L. Smith
IS Dr. Parker again testhes, that in December
lS4S, Henry left Richmond that he advertised
i him; that with diligent search he could not bt
found there, and that since that time he has beer
l. found in the city of New York.
e On the part OF the claimant it is insisted that th
evidence should be deemed satisfactory proof com
n petent in law.
it On the other hand, counsel for the defence hav
If introduced four Witnesses who testify that they
cav Henry in the city of New York IN November
r and December, lS47, January2ith lS+S, and iron
o that time down to the present
d II is claimed, on the part OF the defence, tha
the alleged fugitive not in Richmond at th'
l. time sworn TO by DR.. Parker and the two ship
JI masters.
There is no necessary contradiction between tn
witnesses thus introduced. They only differ rs 4
time. There is no doubt that these four witnesse
have seen Henry Long in New York, but as to th
precise time they may have been mistaken, anC
have substituted the year lSlS for lsi9.
For instance, the paper which bears date Janu
ary "a, lS4S, was undoubtedly written in lS49 10
the witness declares that her ather-in-law sailet
for California in particular ship, which sailed II
January, lS4S, as che swears, when, IN point Q
fact, the ship sailed in january, 1919.
Then TO the testimony OF John Butler, who tes
tifes that he saw Henry Long frequently; tha
Henry was constant driver OF carriage from
particular street named by him, and that he Otter
met him at a blacksmth5 shop in Centre street.
One of these witnesses testihes that Henry was
waiter in hotel in New York Another one tina
he Henry, with a walters garb and dress, OF
r board the Washington all in the year ls4S.
A. If these things actually occurred in lsi5, 1t woul