Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-04-16

thc make Of European descent But that dat
complexion, wooily head and nat nose with
posssssinu md clain Of oWhership, DO afford
prima facie evidence Of the slavery and owner.
ship charged. YfU hIN OI
Here the prosecution claims 10 have shown.
BY the uncontradicted testimony Of Bacon,
Mitchell and Jennings that the neffo John
was held and treated as slave BY John g.
Bacon aud his father, that the mother of this
negro was a slave al her lifetime and bought
and sold as such
Further than this the pedigree Of the negro
and the status Of his ancestors we're not atteinp.
ted 20 be traced. Nor was it necessary; for
were Il traced back to the maternal ancestor Of
1886 no better evidence would OF could be fur.
nished. Il then could only he proved that the
ancestor was a slave, by showing that she had
marks Of African descent, and was bought and
eod as a slave, and held az such This is
precisely the evidence and the only evidence
necessary 10 show the slavery and service
which this negro owed to his master.
It's like any other question Of status Of the
relation Of one person 70 another which NAV he
shownby the facts and circumstances attend.
ing that relation. This may be Illustrated by
the familiar case Of heirship. To establish the
fact that A. is the heir Of b., il is necessary to
prove that there was lawful marriage and
cohabitation and A. the issue of that marriage.
But it is competent and sufficient evidence Of
the hcirship, that B. treated and recognized A.
| as his son.
Upon the principles Of the common law, then
the testimony Of Bacon, Mitchell and Jennings
is competent, and il uncontradicted Day be
deemed sufficient to establish the fact that the
negro John was held TO service as the slave Of
John G. Bacon under the laws of Kentucky
That this slave fed from his master and cs-
caped from Kentucky into the State of Ohio, is
an alleged fact about which the testimony leaves
but little room for controversy. Neither can il
be seriously cOntroverted that Bacon executed
to Jennings a valid Power of Attorney, duly
acknowledged and certified, Cor. the reoapture Of
the slave.
The next question to be determined by the
evidence is, did Jennings hold this fugitive by
virtue ofthe Power Of Attorney at the time Of
the rescue
The Statute provides that the owner or his
agent authorized by power of attorney "nay
pursue and reclaim such fugitive person, either
by procuring warrant from some one of the
Courts, Judges OF Commissioners aforesaid, for
the apprehension of such fugitive from service
or labor, OF by seizing and arresting such fugi.
tive, when the same can be done without pro-
cess, and by taking or causing such person to
be taken forthwith before such Court, Judge or
Commissioner, &c, &c.
Il is true the language of the act is in the al
tentative. The fugitive may be seized and ar
rested upon the warrant, or he may be seized
and arrested by virtue Of the power Of attorney
Both modes of capture have the same object, TO
wit to bring the fugitive before the Court or
Commissioner, The person making the arrest
is clothed with the same power and authority
in the one case as in the other He may at the
same time provide the means of resorting to eli
I ther or both modes of capture. Yet when tits
alleged in the Indictment that the one or the
oil al
al, the proof must support the charge.
t You will, therefore, determine from the evil
: dence, whether or not Jennings held the negro
( John by virtue of the power of attorney from
f Bacon at the time the rescue was made. If yOu
+ find in the affirmative on this proposition, ther
j the enquiry is, was the defendant implicated il
the rescue
s IL the persons who constituted the assemblagC
n at Wellington on the 18th Of September, 1858
y had come together for the purpose, or when
IS there, were engaged in rescuing fugitive
,, slave from those authorized to capture and hold
d him under the statute of 1850 they were Gu
}. gagged in an unlawful act, and whatever was then
d said and done by one, in the prosecution of the
). enterprise, were, to all intents and purposes in
G law, the declarations and acts of all. To impli,
;, cate each and all, however, it must appear that
s there was a concert of action for the accomplish
70 ment of an unlawful purpose.
I
It dcnce establishes the riotous and unlawful cha
J. racter of the assembly gathered in and about
2 the hotel at Wellington, in which the negro wai
10 confined And theimplicaton of the defendant
J. in the rescue is urged, on the ground that the
], crowd in which he mingled threatened to de
le molish the building unless the fugitive was sur
I'd rendered-that the people assembled gave angry
a demonstrations of violence with fire. arms il
id their hands and actually rescued the fugitiy,
l. ALL &, :
a as showing concert of action on the part of tn
Q, defendant and the crowd that his buggy wa
n stationed at convenient distance to receive tn
n negro, that the fugitive was unanimously plac
at ol in it and his escape effected by the delen
I'd dants driving rapidly away.
a These are matters of evidence entirely for tn
d, consideration of the jury.
@ And yet, il these facts are as claimed by th
Government prosecutor, the defendant is no
guilty of the offence with which he stand
"a charged in the indictment unless it ID prove
OF that he acted kao,0ingIy and ioaiingiy. In 9th
or words, it must appear that he knew the ne
VIZ gro was fugitive from labor, and was lawful
la ~ detained by the person or persons who hel
ed him captive; or that ho acted under such eli
pc cumstances as to show that he might have ha
ed such knowledge by exercising ordinary prl
oh dence.
or Usually man is presumed TO know and il
pI tenu Jhe legal consequences OF ms own ucls,-
ed II will not answer TO say that he can close h
fiji eyes and ears against the means Of knOwedg
eh and rush deaf and blindly into the porfOrman'
re- of that which the law declares a crime, Wei
ng it otherwise excesRes against legal process,
,es many cases, might be INDUCED in with impun
ir- ty Criminals might be rescued from law1
on caption ON the plea Of mistake or misappTehei
by sion. The language or the statute should II
ho ccVe a reasonable Interpretation.
Ak Gentlemen OF the jury l have as briefly
tn possible, given you the rules Of law which 81
1n- deemed TO bo applicable TO the case, The ev
inc deDee submitted leave in your hands withou
an any comment, as the questions of fact are f
your determination,
tho This cnse, like every other which is tried i
der court of Justice, should be divested of eyel
or thing that is extraneous. II is tO be determil
lst- ed according to the law and the testimony
gi delivered to you in Court.
th- Much has been eloquently said by learn
at counsel that would be entitled to great weig
or and consideration if addressed TO the Oongre
his ofthc United States or to an ecceaiastical Il
OF bunal, where matters ofcasuistry are discuss
SO and determined.
yiv- It is your duty 20 take the case aud return
and verdict according to the evidence,
After the above charge was delivered, n
Tue BIoKUs arose and said
.oos The Defendant asks the Court to charge I
Jury
ro. lst That in order to warrant conviction
obn this case the testimony must show beyond
IL reasonable doubt, that the defendant as ohaTg
~ in said indictment, did "unlawlu'ly, knowing