New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-04-06
The Fugitive Slave Case.
Mr.. Commissioner Morton makes his apo

ogy in card throughthe columns Of The Herald
That our readers may see what he has to say for
himself, we insert this statement unasked. II is
as follows:
"A CARD.-I deem 1t duty owe to myself az
well as the public, to reply to the statement under
theegnaturcs OF Aessrs Culver and Jay, In IRs Evs.
ing Post Of Saturday evening.
1T was on Thvsday, and not on Friday, that the
attorney for the claimant declared his case closed
and then asked Messrs Culver and Jay II they were
prepared to proceed with their testimony-Mr Cul.
yer having stated In the morning, that he had three
witnessed IN attendance, and / then offered TO sit
until ton that evening. The counsel remarked that
We bad been In session over six hours, aud they
would prefer going on with their testimony the fol-
lowing morning. Mr.. Jay inquired Of the counsel
for the claimant, II he had any more testimony to
offer, and asked the Commissioner II he would per-
NIT the claimant to introduce further estimony and
was answered that none but rebuttng testimony
weul6 DO admitted The case was then adjourned
until Friday morning, when the counsel for the fu
gitive were to produce their testimony.
"At the opening Of the Court on Friday, the coun.
sci, Mesns. Jay and Emmett, (Mr Culver not being
present had no Witnesses In attendance; and sub
penas were Issued to the Marshal to summon two
witnesses-Martin and another person.
The counsel for the fugitive had called Mr.. Bus
teed to the stand, and had examined him At consid
summon the witnessssj MI Jay argued The case on
the part OF the claimant and Mr. Jay after going TO
the library 10 obtain the books cited by the opposite
counsel closed his argument In reply, and the Com
misMonef reserved his decision until the following
GAN the papers that have seen, in which the
ProceecSes were reported stated that the testimony
was cosed-and that certainly was the undefstsn nd.
ing Of the counsel for the claimant a. well az myself
THAT It was mere pretext for ysxasious delay,
and That they had no testimony 10 offer, infer from
tne fact mat after the decision was announced Mr.
Emmett, The associate counsel with Mr.. Jay, stated
ID my ONCE, In the presence Of another gentleman,
that n would have been better to have made the o1.y
70 pc NIT them to have gone on they had no io,.
nsss to produce and IL would not have occupied over
hall an hour, and would hare been more satsfsctorv
10 all concerned.
1t is worthy ofYemark, that the most important
STATEMENTS In the Card relate to occurrences that
took place when Mv. Culver was not present. and
~ to the couectaess Of which he UNDERTAKES to
vouch Tor In terms a. positive as II he were sneak
Ing from personal knowledge. Mr.. Culver esrti6es
snat ne attorney for the claimant declared his case
M Culver was present on Thursdsy, and not on
inoay-n his certificate IL cenect a. 70 the case en-
me part Of the clainsn. being closed in his presence
u must have been on ThuYsday
A"Ihs decision OF the Commissioner vas basad
seely on me testimony Of VIM. d. Reese. And 10
sncavls OF the attorney and all confessions of he
fugitive were wholly excluded and diasearcsd, a.
"GHoRou w. MORTON"
Nothing more is necessary to condemn the
Commissioner than the assertions OF this very
apology, admitting them oil to be true. He
"infers" that when the defendants counse,
offered testimony to establish his freedom on
Saturday morning, their purpose was merely to
cause vexasious delay. They were lying 10
waste time, according to the Commissioner
But what right had he to decide upou such an
inference. without seeing IL they might not have
some testimony such q tAsy Pvofssssi 70 have