Indiana American. [volume] (Brookville, Ind.) 1833-1861, 1854-12-22
First Trial in this State on Charge
Of Harboring Fugitives

tAto 0todttts SotAo Sta W tiAhs lluiCb
ments were pending against differen
persons for harboring fugitive slaves,
all Of which. on motion, were qnashed
The Marshal. by sending to Kentucky
succeeded. il seems. in ascertaining
the name Of the claimant. (which be-
fore was unknown, and brought his
son here under process from the U. s.,
to testify; and one Of the persons a.
bove referred 70. TO wit; Benjamin y
Waterhouse was re-indicted Mr.
Marsh. the Deputy Marshal then
hired the Shareholders son, and Cyrus
Fillmore. (who. Il seems. bad seen Che
negroes on their route North, 20 80
with him 10 Canada and endeayor II
find and identify the negroes- The
result Of their labors, and the unenvi-
able part which the government OIL
GERS played in the prosecution. will be
seen by reference to The testimony, the
substance of which we think worth
while 10 lay before our readers, togeth-
or with some rulings Of Judge Hunt
ingdon upon points raised by the coun-
sci for the defendant. We shall do
this because the prosecution Is the FIRST
one In this State under the 9TH sec
ton Of the net Of 1850, and some GU
riosity win naturally be felt as 10 the
judicial. Interpretation Of the law. and
the proceedings under il.
The case came on for trial on We'd
nesday last, and was given 10 the jury
on Saturday night.
Geo. w. Julian and +. II. Brnckctt
were for the defense. and the District
Attorney and r. w. Thompson prose-
cuted, the argument consuming, in all,
about nine hours, and we are informed
that the cause was conducted with un-
usual zeal and ability on both sides.
Mr.. Thompson spoke over three hours,
much the larger portion Of his speech
being a regular old-fashioned diatribe
on "the Union" having nothing what
ever to do with the facts Of The case.
The court. judging from the charge.
seemed inclined TO fall into the same
line Of argument. taking pains 70 Of
firm, as he went along, that The Union
could never have been formed without
the fugitive clause in the Constitution,
an assertion wholly unsupported by
historical proof. as Senator Sumner
has unanswerably demonstrated.
Some Of the positions assumed by
the court as law in the case, were
these: That the averment in the in
dictmcnt that the slaves escaped IS
sufficient. and it need not alledge that
il was "without the license and against
the wilp' Of the owner; that although
the section referred to declares that
the harboring and coneealing must be
$50 as 70 prevent tAe discovery and ar
rest Of he fsgitives," ye, it need not
be shown that anybody was in pursuit
or that the harboring DC, did prevent
the discovery and arrest, the mere act
Of har6oring rendering tho party liable
Just as under the 4th section of the
act Of 1898: that although. in this
case, the negro Tom is proved to have
belonged to PAYNE, who had bought
him OF DIcKERsoE, and received from
him bill Of sale need not be produ.
ced under the rule requiring the best
evidence, il being sufficient to introduce
parole evidence Of ownership, and
that Of the SON Of Payne being COM
petent proof that in this prosecution
possession alone, is evidence OF
ownership, and ii is competent to show
this possession by secondary proof,
that of the son--without accounting
for the non production of the best ev-
idence; that when man Is once shown
10 have been a slave, the law pre-
sumes him 10 continue slave, no mat
ter where he may be found, and thus
presumes the non-consent OF his own
er so his escape; or in other words,
that a slave in Kentucky, when found
in Indiana, where the law presumes
every man free, is nevertheless, prima
facia slave, and il lies upon the par
ty denying it to controvert that pre-
sumption, no proof by the owner Of
non consent being required; that il is
not necessary to alledge in the indict-
ment the means by which the harbor-
ing dc. was Effected, that being mat
ter OF evidence. and not Of allegation;
and both Mr. Thompson, who closed
the argument. and the court in It's
charge, told the jury in somewhat
deprecatoly tone, that IL they should
find the defendant guilty there was a
discretion in the court to make The i'm
prisonment moderate, aud in the coun.
~ Jail instead Of the penitentiary Of
the STATED The Judge also thought
proper to express his regret that the
counsel for the defendant should have
INDUCED in any severity OF language
towards the Marshal and his Deputy,
whom he kindly took under his jude
ial wing, in way to indicate that bis
succor was needed, and that some Of
the shot Of defendants counsel had
taken the desired effect. As to this,
our readers shall Judge from the evil
dence; but il strikes as that some OF
the foregoing positions may admit Of
serious question.
The Jury on Tuesday morning
having gone out on Saturday night
returned verdict Of guilty, under
the Sd count Of the indictment, "a
which they appended written rec
commendation of the defendant TO the
favorable consideration OF the court
and stating that the evidence wa
barely sufficient to convict. The cour
thereupon assessed upon him q fine o
frfy dollars. and ordered him co be
imprisoned one hour, which was en-