New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-03-25
CALIFORNIA A FREE srArA

N been bewitched by Southern poiincians' anu
srsssely &c she ia misrepsesensed ~ tnis in'~ns
= Congress, 10 after all Free State. Inc case TO
which we refer came before Judge Hayes, whose
roeess;.e, in Il were alike crediabpe to his head
ssd 10 his heart, and whose final Judgment as pub
rahed "a The Los Angeles Star, would do honor to
s.y RADICAL tribunal in the UDion The case was
arys brought TO his notice op petition for writ Of
Asbcss corpus, for the beleft Of fourteen persons
II colr-namely: HaJnsb, aged tbirty-four years,
sad Biddy, aged thirty eight, and their children;
Ann, seventeen years Of age, with her child Mary,
Hws years old; Lawrence twelve, Nathaniel ten,
ysne eight, Charles six, Marion four, Msrtha two
ard an infant boy two weeks old-children OF Han
Sxh; Ellen seventeen, Ann twelve, Harriet eight
children of Biddy. The petitioners stated 'has
thor were free having been brought into the oA'o
of California ia the year 1851 (n the Autumn), ~
Rcbert Smith, who had resided there with them
sver since, and still held them in servitude' and
,ss about 10 remove to the State Of Texas, carry
~ them with him into Slavery.
though described in the petition az colored per-
sons. in fact Hannah was nearly white, and some
of her children could not be distinguished by any
external marks from white persons.
The defendants return to the writ which Issued
upon this petition set forth, that 10 Mississippi ne
Owned. az slaves, Hannah, Lawrence and Ma
thaniel, also Biddy and her three children above
paued that he ieft that State for Utah Territory;
thsf Jane was born in Illinois, Charles in Utah
Territory, and the other four in California; that
hannah and Biddy, the mothers, left Mississippi
with their own consent, rather than remain there,
end that the defendant had supported them and
fheir children ever since, subjectng tkem to no
greater control than his ewn children, and not
holding them as slaves that it was his Intention to
remove to Texas AID take them with him; that
Hannah and her children we're well disposed 10 re-
main with him, and that the petition was iledwith-
out their knowledge and consent " 1t is under
"stood," added the return between said Smith
and said persons thai they will return to said
Estate Of Texas with him voluntarily, as portion
'"of his family"
Judge Hayes, however, though born and educated,
and tilkhe removed TO California always resident
Of Slave State, proved not to be inclined-like
some other noted judicial fanctionaries born and
educated at the North and resident in States of
which more may reasonably be expected than OF
.Cslifernia-to become an accessory 10 kidnap-
ping operation. He was no Kane-no Leavitt.
This ease did not come within the provisions OF the
statute, passed in the teeth of the Constitution OF
California, by which those who had brought slaves
into California prisr TO the adoption of the State
Constitution were allowed a certain time within
which TO remove them. They were broughtin sub
sequeptly to the State organization, and, besides,
the time allowed for renewal had expired. In
deed, the defendant did NOT claim to hold or re-
move them as slaves, but only as their friend and
volunteer guardian.
Seeing that his prospects upon the law and the
fhcts were not very promising, the defendant ap-
pears to have reserted to policy highly character
istic of slaye-trapping tactics On the second
uorping of the trial motion was made to dismiss
tie proceedings, based on note from the petition
ers' attorney to the attorney on the opposite side,
in these words; II, as attorney for the petition
ers, being no longer authorized to prosecute the
"writ, and being discharged FROM the same by the
"partie. who are responsible to me, decline fur
" ther to prosecute the matter" The author of
this note, being svbpenaed and examined, deposed
that the person who had caused the original petit
zion on which the writ had issued to be fled after
stating that he had been threatened by some per-
son, (whose name was not disclosed, requested
him. the attorney fer the petitioners, to abandon
the suit, and that he had agreed to do 50 upon that
persons securing hin 800 in addition to the 800
already paid him; but that he had not advised with
the petitioners themselves, and had not Informed
them of this OF consulted their wishes.
Judge Hayes however, perenPtorly declined to
be fooled in this manner He denied the right OF
the attorney-whO got a severe and well-deserved
rebuke-to abandon the cause OF his clients at his
own pleasure, without good reassn therefor and
fair notice to them. he denied the right Of third
person, not party to the record, 10 interfere to
stop the proceedings merely beeanae he had paid
fee in the ease; and in spite Of the denial OF the
defendants attorney, the Judge intmated his
strong suspicion and belief that the defendant was
himself at the bottom Of what he described as an
" ill-advised srratngem 10 Illustrate this writ of
"habeas corpus" The motion was refused; and
as Smith did not even pretend that Biddy and her
children were willing TO 60 with him; he offered
proof whatever to sustain his assertion of such
willihgness-in the ease of Hsn1sh and her chill
dren, not vent,lrng to examine the parties present
incolrt on that delicate subject-and as Hannah,
even il willing to 60 herself has right to act for
her minor children in case Involving their per-
sonal iiberty-on these grounds the Judge gave
judgment that al the petitioners were free; and
under an excellent rule of the California Statutes