Washington sentinel., 1854-06-07

lue place OF violence aud war These were the
circumstances, and this The spirit in which the
Constitution was made, The regulation Of slavery
so Tar as TO prohibit States by law from harboring
fugitive slaves was an essential element in It's for
nation, and the union intended 10 be established
by ~ wac essentially necessary 10 the peace, hap
piness and highest prosperity Of all the States. In
this spirit and with these views steadily in pros
pect il seems 10 be the duty of all Judges and ma.
igistrates TO expound and apply these provisions in
the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and in this spirit il behoves all persons bound TO
obey the laws ofthe United States TO consider and
regard. them" MI
Il is SAID that the statute, if constitutional is
wirked and cruel The like charges were brought
against The act of 1893 ; and O. j Parker, of Mas
sachusetts, made the answer which @. j. Shaw
cites and approves, viz 80 Whether the statute is
harsh one or not, lis not for us TO determine
1t is said that the statue is cruel and wicked
that il should not be executed by good men. Then
into what hands shall its administration fall and
in its administration what is, 10 be the protection
Of the unfortunate men who are brought within
its operations Will those who call the statute
merciless commit 1t 10 mercless Judge I at,
II the statute involves that right, which for us
makes life sweet and the want of which makes
life misfortune. shall its administration be CEN
fined TO those who. are reckless Of that right in
others, or ignorant careless of the means given
for its legal defence, or dishonest in their use?
II any men wish this they are more cruel and
wicked than the statute, for hhey would strip from
ton the statute leaves him. s
As think the statute is constitutional, it re-
mains for me now 10 apply tito the facts of the
case.
The facts to be proved by the claimant are
/. That Anthony Burns owed him service in
Virginia.
2 That Anthony Burns escaped from that SER
vice 9A&
/ These facts he has proved BY the record which
tt Hall Ill
and tnken 10 be full and conclusive evidence Of the
fact Of escape and that the service ofabor of the
person escaping is dueto the party in such record
mentioned"
Thus these two facts are removed entirely and
absolutely from my jurisdiction, and am entirely
and absolutely precluded from applying evidence
TO them II, therefore, there is in the case evi
dence capable Of such application, cannot make
The Sd fact is the identity Of the party before
me, with the Anthony Burns mentioned in the re-.
cord.
This identity is the only question I have right
to consider TO this, and TO this alone, l am to
apply The evidence and the question whether the
respondent was IN Virginia or Massachusetts at
certain Time, is material only as is evidence on
the point of identity So the parties have used il,
and the testimony of the complainant being that
the Anthony Burns of the record was in Virginia
on the 18th Of March last, the evidence Of the re-
spondent has been offered to show that he was
in MASSACHUSETTS on or about the Isl Of March
last, and thereafter till now.
The testimonyiofthe claimant is from a single
witness, and he standing in circumstances which
would necessarily bias the tairest mind--but other
lmputation than this has not been offered against
him, and from any thing that has appeared before
me cannot be--bis means of knowledge are per-
sonal, direct, and qualify him TO testify confident
ly; and he has done SO. s,
The testimony on the part of the respondent il
from many witnesses whose integrity is admitted,
andto whom no imputation OF bias can be attached
by the evidence in the case, and whose means of
knowledge pc rsona and direct, but in my
opinion, less full and complete than those Of Mr..
Brent.
Then between the testimony Of the claimant and
respondent there is a conflict, complete and ire
concilabe, on the question Of identity. Such a
conflict OF testimony is not unprecedented nor
common in Judicial proceedings. and the trial of
DR.. Webster furnished memorable instance Of it.
1 The question now is, whether there is other evil
dence in this case which will determine this con.
fict In every case of disputed identity there is
one person always whose knowledge is perfect
and positive and whose testimony is not within
the reach of error, and that is the person whose
identity is questioned and such this case affords.
The evidence is of the conversation which took
place between Burns and the claimant on the night
Of the arrest. en9 35tH s r1s
When the complainant entered The room where
Burns was, Burns saluted him, and by his chris
tian name" How do you do, Master 6Chares?n
lie saluted Mr. Brent also, and by his christian
.name-'' How do you do. Master William" To
the appsllaiion Master, q give no weghtl a,
Col Suttle said, How came you here?p Burns
said an accident had happened 10 hm--that he
was working down at Roberts, ON board vessel,
got tired and went to sleep, and was carried off
in the vessel tsR 9F8i fis
Mr.. s.-Anthony, did Fever whip youp'
Mrs Did lever hire you out any where
where you did no, wish to go?
B-No sir. aa.aas- 'sfAag eiteasfe
Mr.. S. Have You ever asked me for money that
l did not give il TO you? .g.' -l'.1t
Mr. S-When you were sick did not prepare
and nurse you?
B-Yes, sir. t'lt+ z tg@'bs a9i laaS @tN- st R
Something was said about going back He was
asked II ne was willing TO go back, and he said
less he was. ~ sf 8 III fHkgs. .s a 49, ~ IA 8sr +
This was the testimony of Mr.. Brent. That
conversation took place was confirmed by the tes-
tmony OF Caleb Page, who was present and added
the remark that Burns said he did not come i'm
Capt Shows vessel. The. cross-examinaiion of
Brent showed that Col. Sutle said--I make you
no promises, and make you no threats"
Io me this evidence when applied 10 the ques-
ton OF identity confirms and establishes the les.
tmony OF Mr.. Brent in its conflict with that offered
on the part Of the respondent, and then on the
whole testimony my mind lis satisfied tbeyopd a
reasonable doubt Of The identity ofthe respondent
with the Anthony Burns named in the record. ,
II was objected that this conversation was in the
nature OF admissions; and that, too OF man stu
piled by circumstances and fear, and these consi-
derations would have weight had the admissions
been used 70 establish the. truth of the mat
ters TO which they referred to--i, Q. the usage,
the giving Of money, nursing, tEc.; but they were
used for no such purpose, but only as evidence
in reference 10 identity. Had they been procured
by hope or fear they would have been .inadmissi.
be but of that considered there was no evi-
dence, y ts3t.e,.. ss .
On the law and facts Of the case, consider the
claimant entitled TO the certificate from me which
he claims. 45 8r s5ls 81 s
last Sunday afternoon in the Park, between
party of Irishmen and the friends of the preach-