The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1859-07-07
SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF CO
LUMBIA.
From The National Intelligencer


A case Of peculiar character and more than
ordinary interest, both to professional and lay
readers, came before Judge Merrick on Tues
day morning, the facts of which appear to be
as follows:
John Wilmer, of Washington county, Mary
land, bought certain slaves from the late Gen
Lingan, of Maryland. One of the women thus
purchased gave birth to a child, who was named
Agnes Robinson. The mother of A gnes was
set free at some time after the birth Of Agnes
Agnes herself was also manumitted by her mas
ter, John Wilmer, in the year l847 Shortly
afterwards, Agnes came TO Washington city to
live, with the full knowledge of Daniel Wilmer,
the son Of John Wilmer, and in about the year
1919 herself became mother. Daniel Wilmer
now claims Agnes aud her child as fugitives,
asserting hi, property in them under bill of
sale dated in 1874. The father, Jehn Wilmer,
died last summer, and the son made no claim
on Agnes until after the death of his father.
Further, the bill Of sale under which he claims
was never recorded in Washington county, Ma
ryland, until the present month, though the
girl had visited for a considerable time Daniel
Winners place of abode in that county.
The claimant in support of his claim pro-
duced certified copy of record of the Or
phans' Court of Washington county, Maryland,
consisting OF the petition of the claimant, not
sworn to, and the deposition Of Benjamin Wit
mer, setting forth that Agnes had been the
slave of John Wilmer the father of claimant
and was sold by him to the claimant by bill Of
sale on the 9TH of May, 1874, and was after
wards IN the possession Of the claimant, and
that she passed out Of his possession about
twelve years ago The record contained a copy
of the bill of sale. The original was not pro
duced here, and il did not appear from the copy
to have been acknowledged or recorded The
deposition did not alege that Agnes or her
child had fed from labor. There was no iudg-
ment of the Orphans Court and the proceed
ings in that court were confined to Agnes, the
child not being included.
Mr.. Davidge, who appeared for the respond.
entS, offered i'll evidence a duly certified COPY
of deed of manumission from John Wilmer,
the father, to Agnes, dated July ), lS47, duly
acknowledged and recorded, and the free papers
issued TO her thereupon and he offered wit
nesses to show that the claimant never had
possession OF Agnes az his slave that the bill
of sale had been virtually abandoned by the
father and his son, the claimant; that shortly
after her manumisSiOn she came to this city
where her mother, who had also been manu-
mitted by John Wilmer, resided, and has
since, with the knowledge of the claimant
lived here as a free woman, and been treated
and recognised as such; and that Agnes was
in no sense fugitive and could not be re-
manded in this proceeding.
Judge Merrck ruled that, under the tenth
section Of the fugitive slave law the copy of the
record Of the Orphans Court was conclusive,
and that the only open question was that of
idenlty. de therefore excluded the evidence
offered on behalf of the negroes.
1t was objected that the copy of the record
could ba c,,,clusi,-c =. i
ance with the tenth section, which relates to
courts IF record, which the Orphans Courts
of Maryland are not; that the Orphans Court
had, under the law of Maryland O limited u-
rsdictiOn, confined to testamentary and other
specific subjects and plainly had no power TO
act in the premises; that the act of Congress,
with view to the protection Of the rights OF
the negro, did not embrace every court, but had
reference 10 the State tribunals having com
mon-law jurisdiction, and of higher dignity,
and with authority 10 entertain a complaint of
this nature; and that no act of Congress could
confer jurisdiction OH a State tribunal
The Judge oyerruled these objections, and
held, as above, that the copy of the record was
conclusive.
| The copy of the record held to be conclusive
/ did nct embrace the child, she not being men
/ toned in IL and il was urged that as under
| tAaS 'NAAAAS ~ 'SS bAiAo pIOCt6ulAR was
auxiliary TO the proceeding in the Orphans
Court o. Maryland, and as the child was not
embraced IN that proceeding, she could not be
delivered To the claimant; and that if, on the
| other hand, this proceeding were original
| then, under the sixth section Of the act it was
competent to show that the child was not I
runaway, and was free Evidence to that effec-
was offered, as it had been previously Offered
| in the case of the mother.
The Judge held the matter under advise
meHt until Wednesday, when he ruled that tn,
record was equally conclusive upon the child
and refused To allow the introduction Of an,
evidence save such as would 20 TO show tina
she was not the child born since the residenc,
| OF Agnes here.
Agnes and her daughter were then delivered
into the custody of the claimant.
Counsel for claimant, Messrs. j. NJ Carlisl
aud ]. McCutcheon for respondents, Messrs
Walter b. Davidge and Asbury Lloyd.