Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-11-22

uone or that should be able to discern the features
features "'0 pe'9'' ''i'90-' y ans
The difficulty would arise in the interior portions
OF ihe counties in looking across ponds or lakes mar
rover portions of water, in looking distant OBJ
Jecis that are within the discemment OF man,-the
uhcutY would arise there in discerning the features,
ana determining who he to be able to testify
TO any event. So that while, the hand, you
De able TO see for valuable purpose, persons
zon but as mainland be able take some c0gnizance
OF what is being done; the Oher hand is
sa 10 descend 10 that minute degree acknowledge which
eaees YOU 70 see everything that transpes, as you
might If the person was near by.
IL seems to me- gentlemen that with this Illustration
may return IN Tie language find in the book, and leave
you with the general mstrpcton that the government
must satisfy you that persons and objects could be
sonabiy dlscerned from shore to shore.
The burden OF proof this we'll the
upon the government If the government fail estab
s this Tact beyond reasonable doubt in your minds the
government has failed TO make out the charge in the
Indictment and though you should believe the offence to
nave been committed yet if through any defect of legis
aqn or any other cause it was not within your juris
dlction then you cannot convict.
While fix the limit within which objects may be
REASONABLY dlscerned as within the jurisdiction of tho
county have no evidence which authorizes to go
further ltmght be very convenient TO include these
waters IN the harbor of Hyanns certainly far the
extreme points and perhaps farther far the juris
th jurisdiction should be extended here but if il has
not been, then it is not faultt is your fault.
20 not lind any acc of the legislature carrying the juris
ct9n 70 tha extent; and were to assume that the
jurisdiction OF the county extended to this point, do
not Know upon what principle or authority, or fact
It might have been the it might naturally have
would have been long usage Of the courts sanctioned
by the courts in trials occurring frequently enough
snow by sort OF conmon-law knowledge that the uris
dlcuon OF the county, extended further. If it
should APPEAR by the of proceeding in of
Justce TOR long period of time, that it had been the
as far out as that 1oiHt sbouid that rs whence
showing, to some extent that the county extended thus
lar But there is nothing Of that kind The District
Attorney, with all his diligence and research has ouly
been able TO gather instance the recollection of
very respectable legal gentleman OF Bristol county,
NnoS testimony II II were before would be perfectly
reliable to the effect that in the county of Bristol
nan century age there was an indictment found under
similar circumstances There does not appear TO have
been any adjudication in that case, and il testified to
here. would be of no avail in determining this ques
ton 1t is not evidence; and allude to it simply
showing how difficult it has been to obtain any Informal
ton in this matter the research OF the District
Aorney mas gone So trace the jurisdictions as far as
by any rule of law and any evidence it be carried
and beyond that cannot evidence to carry the
jurisdiction of the county of Barnstable further.
ms gentlemen makes out, briefly, the case for the
c the commission Of the offence by these defendants,
and that was done within the limits of the county of
Barnstabe defined here satisfy You Of these facts be-
yond reasonable doubt then the government will be
titled to verdict against these defendants unless these
defendants offer something which ill meet the charge,
and show that they are innocent of the crime alleged
They say, in their defence, that if they did perform
Jones slave in Florida. slave fact, and slave
under the laws of the state of Forda that he escaped
him back to Florida in the performance of duty, the
exercise of right, which they had individually, under
the owner That he slave In Florida in point of
fact is not now questioned; that he held in pursu
ance of certain enactments of the Legislature of Florida
regarded as laws there is not controverted here at this
time; and it known to whom there, he considered
as belonging So much, there question about,
OF his escape that he came here escaping from scrv
OF these defendants and that being found here, on board
the vessel OF Orlando, he taken back The defend
relied upon that they had right so to do that he was
slave escaped from service in Florida where by the laws
OF Florida he was bound to and that they c
zens had right to take him back to the state Of Florida
Gentlemen cannot ask you to receive that as law in the
trial OF this The of the Legislature prohibits
the carrying of man into ervtuGe from Massachusetts
1t excerpts only one That exception slot to
briefly in other anguagewhere BY the Constitution oi
the United States construed by the legislature the
person removed is claimed by his owner and the person
removing him acts under the authority of that claim
And this provision of the Constitution seems be refer
mo person held to service or labor in one state under
the laws thereof, escaping into another SHALL in
Quence of any law regulation therein be discharged
from such service or labor but shall be delivered up
claim OF the party to whom such service labor may be
due"
Now, by that law, gentemen-and we must take that
law not to be in contraventOn of the Constitution of the
United States for the present purpose-by that law, the
escaped slave cannot be taken back except the claim
OF the person to whom the sevic due by the laws
OF me Ioregn state or by some one acting under his au
thorty The Legislature does not recognize the du
ty of the citizens of this state to take back escaped
slave into slavery; but regarding the provision OF the
Constitution of the United States it provides that when
titled by the laws of the state from which he
that service by authority from him. then he
else As said before it is not necessary wise
fer to the history of that subject in the past under
take to say what our duties at the present me
what would be wise or proper legislation but we
feel happy so far as this trial concerned that the Leg
islature has saved us from that duty, and looking the
obligations OF the people of Massachusetts, to the Const
tuition of the State and of the United States enacted
they have The Legislature, the hand anxious
preserve the liberty of all who may be territory
and under the protection of its laws does consent
that any within the limits of the State of Massachl-
sets shall be taken back into savery except under the
United States Regarding the man here not as bond
man, but us free in Massachusetts having the right
binary matters to appeal to our courts and to the protec
ton Cf laws, the Legislature guards his rights by
among Others this statute of 1855 but says the
tme that II the owner OF slave, living in state where
slavery is allowed, comes and claims him, he shall be
given up but although he has escaped from servitude
unless that owner does see fit to come himself to reclaim
him. or use his authority to reclaim him, he shall
nave the rights OF every other man. and be held
as free man here; evidently designing to give auhor
" to this provision of the Constitution of the Uniled
nothing more against the liberty of the Citizen There
fore gentlemen, 1t seems to very clear, that under
United states, had no authority independent of any de-
rived from the owner OF the slave; no authority cit
zens to take him to Virginia or Florida in the fact
OF ms coming IN the manner he DID, on board the vessel
he did 1t might subject the party to Inconvenience, he
ained and if for other he might desire to take
him away, bu he could not do this without this author
not the question here. The motives OF the defendants
far as they come within your considerations are confined
without authority took him from the state and from the
jurisdiction of the county, with the intent Of CARRYING HIM
TO servitude, then, although they might be mistaken i'll
their views, and might think it was right to do So it
Is violation of the law; they undertook to do what
the law said they should otd0-that is, remove man
into servitude,and they would be guilty But the mo-
i've, the moral crmlhaity Of individuals the mistakes
sderatlons for the court if they convicted in
the Executive afterwards. Broad discretion Is given to
me court as well as ample powers to the Executve and
all these considerations would be- not for the Jury
are to pass upon the fact of the commission OF this of
fence or not and not upon the worthy unworthy pur
pose tor which 1t is done The only intention you
look at is whether there was intention take this
man into slavery.
Gentlemen, the defendants go further and saw that
lney were authorized by the the slave take
him back. No written authority has been shown There
was writing offered in evidence, which has been dis
cussed here somewhat but not allowed to so into the
case by the court because it did show by its terms
authority And here perhaps it is proper for say
that the Interpretation papers Of that kind is ior the
court They arc TO interpret the meaning of papers and
therefore the court looked at the paper to whether
it is admissible notand about that there ques
ton at aland seeing no authority i'll it, it did in
And in the absence Of such evidence you cannot pre-
sumo that there is writing which, being shown to the
court the court would interpret be authority given to
ese ueIeluants you see IN the case evidence of au-
thority either verbal written, the part
ers given to the defendants before the act DONE them
gentlemen the defendants would make out their deence
II there is no evidence of such authority, they would
came to the question of defence.
Nor is this authority to be implied from the fact that
the owner of the slave if he had known of these acts
would have approved OF them or would have given au
th0rlty You may believe that he would having regard
TO ms own interest," but that consideration will not weigh
win you IN ihe determination of This cause In some
cases. an implied authority may be derived the
That II was tor the interest of the party III for instance,
Mr. Foreman your house OH fire. and throw water
upon it to cXtingush the flames should have implied
IL
ants violated the terms OF the statute and returned this
man TO servtvde, they did unlawful act, and it does
not depend upon the subsequent act of any person in
out of the state to remove the guilt change the char
acter of an offence against the law into ustiabe pro-
ceedng Therefore, think there be no ratification
after the act done which affect its character and
saying this broadly do it that the defendants may have
an opportunity for the revision of this well all other
questions ofaw. So, when you take the instruction of
the court, to matters of law you take 1t with safety
to the defendants, well as with justice the common
wealth because, in the haste OF trial. the emil
nent Judge we have in the commonwealth the oldest,
the most experienced may to say nothing OF the rest
OF u.s. therefore provision made for careful consdera
ton and deliberate revision OF the opinions given on mat
ers olaw at any time that the defendants shall suffer