Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1855-08-11
Trum the Philadelphia sun.
A ROMAN SLAVE CASE REPORTED.

We know we shall crafty our readers generally,
Judge Kane aud District Attorney Van Dyke in
particular, by reporting the celebrated case OF Com
monwealth ex rel Marcus Claudius VS. Virginia,
heard before his Honor the Decemvir Appius
Claudius, 3. c.. l49, when the Judge delivered the
following decision
Marcus Claudius, a citizen of distinction, who
has served the State in many honorable stations,
and recently as ambassador to the Nolscl, passing
one OF the public schools, recognised bis slave Viz
GINA, long absent from his custody, O maiden Of
fifteen years, of exqu isiteb beauty and consequently
OF extraordinary value. While she was playing
with her companions, he, as was his undoubted
right, seized upon her as his property, but was
prevented by the muscular strength Of some dozen
or twenty Of her female friends from taking her
away they declaring that she was free. pressing
him aside and threatning to cut his throat; she
Htruggling to release herself from the mob and pro-
testing her wish to go with her master:
At length, procuring a hackney coach 1--WE trans
late fr%eely-tue word is rheda in the original
that was IN waiting, he succeeded III bringing her
to this tribunal. lie then made oath that she was
born in his house, of a female slave, who sold her
TO the wife Of Nirginius, named Numitoria, who
was barren. Being stru ok with the justice OK his
claim, and her reputed father being absent in the
army, and as it was not lawful to detain her from
her master, | adiudged her to Claudius, as his slave
to be kept by him until Sirginius should be chleto
prove his paternity. But one lcilius interfering by
Violence carried her Off. And now, Virginius, hav-
ing secretly left the army, appears before me, and
producing her, answers to the claim of Claudius,
on oath, that Virginia is his own and not his
adopted daughter that she is the child of his
lawfully welded wife, and not the slave o. Cladius;
iiitt neither ROW nor at any other time, was she
the slave or in the possession of Claudius."
| allowed the claimant to traverse this denial,
aud several Witnesses who were asked by him tes-
titled to the facts as l have stated them.
cannot look upon the denial of ownership by
Nirginius otherwise than as illusory in legal phrase
cvas:ye, if not false. 1t sets out that Virginia is
his own and not his adopted daughter" and in so
far it uses legally appropriate language for such
denial. But it goes further, and by added words,
gives an Interpretation to chat language essentially
variant from its legal import. 1t denies that NIr-
ginia, now, or at any time whatever, was the
slave or in the possession OF C!audius. Now, the
evidence of respectable, uncontradicted witnesses,
establishes the fact beyond controversy, that Nir-
giniu was at one time within his power and control.
ID would be futile and worse to argue, then, the
uncontroverted fact, that she was the slave 0!
Claudius. Did she not come voluntarily with him
to the first meeting before this tribunal being
then by the decree of this Court in his actual pos
session, and lie having and exercising ownership
for however blief a ~space-ifonly for an infnilesi-
NAL point Of time, it is clear as it seems to me,
that in legal acceptance, she was then the slave OF
Claudius, and the whole denial Of Nirgir.us fails
from this specific vice, which runs through, pervades
and vitiates the whole instrument. The great re-
medal process By which liberty is indicated and
restored, tolerates no language in tho response
which itcalls for that can mask a subterfuge. The
drearest of life, personal safety, domestic peace
social repose, all that man can value, or that il
worth living for, are involved in this principle. Tht
institutions Of society would lose more than hal
their value, and courts Of justice become impoten
for protection, if it could not ompe the truth, full
div oct. and unequiyocal, in answer to is mandate
Waving the inquiry rs to the circumstances Of tn
birth Of Virginia, ! have to say -
/. know Of no statute, either Of the lively,
Tables or Of the elder days of the Republic, tina
authorizes the abduction OF Virginia from the pos
session Of Claudius upon the claim of paternity, un
less in aud Of legal process.
.. That know of no statute which affects t
ailest the rights Of property of a citizen, NJ
quired and asserted under the decision Of this tr
bunal.
3. That I Gm not aware that any such statute,
such u one were shown, could be recognised as va
Ell in n Court Of the Decemvirate.
4. That it seems 10 me altogether unimpOrtau
whether Virginia were q slave or not. 1t would b
the m0ckery Of philanthropy TO assert that, becaus
che had been free. she might not therefore be fore
8 bly, abducted by Claudius. under that proud may
ina of our fathers. carried out by tie rape Of til
Sabines, F5rtiori eedehaHm est.
''That il property which the law declares TO b
property, " is clearly defined by ancient and honol
ed precedent and il q maxim Indispensable to tn
administrative Of social justice and the p%roteetio
Of human rights, and too potentially invoked b
tho special e1igencies Of tho case now before thi
tribunal to excuse egen q doubt OF my dnty, or q
apology for its performance.
have said nothing Of tho motives by which ia
pretended father Of the slave has been governed
have nothing " do with them they may Civ