Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1853-06-25
Z II L B U G L Z .
The Trainer Case.


,culeo.
We will now proceed to examine the case
upon its merits Charles Trainer, the rela-
tor, claims that June Trainer, an infant nine
years Ofage, is his Legitimate child and that
the respondent without authority, detaiUs her
Mt u house of il-fainP, No. l0l Mercer ST.,
in the City of New York. The respondent
ndnlits that the relator is the father Of Jane,
but denies that he wns lawfully married to
her mother, the latter being slave; aud
denies that the child is under any restraint !;
and AYERS that she voluntarily remnius with
the respondent. These are the substantial
facts upon which the decision depends, nj
though numerous irrelevant matters have
been brought into The cnsr, aud quite an M
necessary amount OF ill-ierling excited aud
displayed. These nntters relate 10 the fact,
thnt Jane was born slave belonging to re-
-spUndeiIt; that she was mndc free lIy re.
.sIondent moving into the State of Ohio he
fore she came to New York. nnd lhnt the re-
.lnior is aud always has been free black
Tnnii.
Il is hardly necessnsy to remind the par.
ties aud their counsel that, upon u question
of this kind, the law in this State recognizes
no distinction OF color or race aud that all
fathers, whatever may he their standing IN
society, have precisely the snlne legal au-
thority and control over their children. The
relnior stands before the Court simply ms n
Inan, prosecuting his paielnnl rights while
the respondent appears us woman having
no claim upon the child, 10y agreement or
consnnguinity,' hut only through the afiec-
tions. Ii is wholly unnecessary, therefore
10 inquire into the complexion Oi the one or
the reputation Of the other. u she were the
most exalted lady in the land, aud he the
most humble Of its inhabitants, tlIeil righis,
IN the eye oftlie law, aud their consideration
IN the view of this Court, would he the saule.
~ regard to The Legitimacy Of The child,
have been somewhat embarrassed, because
there is no direct evidence of the fact, ex-
.rept the testimony of the relntor hiInsell.-
For, although such testimony has been usIi-
ally admitted, am not quite sure that i,
stands upon any sulid foundation. lu the
view, however, which take of the case, the
legitimacy OF the child is not u fact OF vital
Importance. .-
The r. lator swenrs that he was married
IN Mobile by black Melh0dst preacher =
his wife being n slave aud both members Of
the denomination. Upon this it is clnimed
by respondents counsel that the marriage is
void, 10y reason OF a statute of the Suite of
Alabama forbiddng slaves TO marry
Whether il he true, rs the argument tends
TO show, that nll the slaves IN that State are
illeglimate, IL is not necessary more particu-
larly TO inquire. IL is sufficient for us that
the marriage being by words de presente, and
followed hy cohablniion, is good us mar
Tiage at comniOn law.
Assuming, then, that the child is legiIi-
nnie, how stands the question between the
father aud the respondent, ns To its custody?
To this question Int one answer can he Civ
en-. That the father has title superior TO
any stranger is not less the doctrine of the
authorities Than it is principle of humnn
nature. Tie fathers rights nre paramount
even to the mothers, until he forfeits his
Claims by misconduct or ill-usage. "People
in re- Nickerson, ID Wen. l6." lie is bound
to support and maintain il. lie is, therefore
"ihe natural guardian, and entitled to its Gus
"tody, care aud education" lie hns the ma
tural right to bring itup in his own faith, and
give il such instructions and discipline
as he mny deem hes, for its present and iil-
sure welfare. IN the language of Judge
Bronson, in Mercein VS.. the People, % Wen
y: "The law regards him ms the head Of
A'tlle family; obliges him to provide for it's
"~ants and commits the children TO his
"chhrge in preference TO the claims OF the
-.Doiher or any other person."
Even ii we lay nshle the REALTORS iesiino-
snony, aud adopt MS true the statement in
tho return, that Jane is his illegilimaie child,
still bis claim would he superior TO that Of
the respondent, or any other stranger, al
though inferior to TINT Of the mother. l
Clarke, ch. Rep. In every aspect, therefore,
in which this case can he received, we are
compelled to admit lhnt the fathers right TO
the possession of the Child is superior 10 tint
of the respondent; and | may be pardoned
for saying, tllnt, il he moved in the higher
walks OF life, if he were white nian Oi
standing and influence in the community,
,she truth Of this proposition would he uni
versaIly acknowledged and any tribunal
that, having authority, should hesitate 10 nf-
ford relief, would subject itself TO just re-
pronch. The public voice, az well as COM
mon sense, would declare t,at, If our Courts
permit children Of such an age to lenve their
parents and take up their abode as they
please, a most valuable social reation would
be subveried, md the foundations of do.
nestic peace and enjoyment broken up and
destroyed. sY, W sl..,,.e7, ,.,..-. - ..,.
!, Guided by these lights, we shall direcI
an order 70 be ,entersd udjudgjng ihar tbs