Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1859-11-21

or authority; slave escaping on board a
ship, without the knowledge of its officers, is in
their custody as an involuntary deposit; such
custody continues unimpaired in all places
within tae jurisdiction of the United States !;
and many others. The last point was that the
burden of proof rested upon the government
to show that the acts alleged we're committed
within the body of the county of Barnstable'
The points of constitutional law made by Mr..
Gushing were ably controverted by District
Attorney Sanford, who conducted the case for
the government
Chief Justice Allen made clear and lumin-
GUS charge to the jury, thoroughly reviewing
the field traversed by witnesses and the coun-
sci. The charge dwells with much particular
ity on the unsatisfactory nature of the testi'
mony on the question of jurisdiction, the limits
of the county never having been clearly de-
fined by law, or by judicial decision There
was no authority, he said, to extend the juris-
diction of the county beyond the distance
within which objects could be reasonably dis
cerned." 1t would not be sufficient that OBJ
jects could be merely seen, but they must be
seen for some valuable purpose-so seen that
cognizance could be taken of what was being
done. If the government had established that
the offence was committed within the limits SO
defined, they were bound to return verdict
against the defendants. Empanneled under
the laws of the commonwealth, the jury were
to be governed by tho laws of the common
wealth in making up their verdict. The broad
er subjects of national duty brought up in the
course of the trial, however proper and useful
an inquiry elsewhere, was not before them for
consideration. We quote that portion of the
charge which relates to the assumption of the
counsel for the defence, that admitting that
Jones was slave and within the jurisdiction
of Massachusetts, they still had the right to
take him back. He said 3
| cannot ask you toreceive this as law The
act of the Legislature prohibits carrying any
man from Massachusetts, into servitude, except
in one case, when by the Constitutio of the
United States, as construed by the Legislature
the person remanded by the owner, and the
person taking him is one authorized by the
owner. We must take the law not in contra
vention Of the Constitution of the United
States. By that law the slave cannot be taken
back except on the claim of the person own
ing him, or some one acting under his authority.
The Legislature does not recognize it as duty
of citizens to take back an escaped slave into
servitude; but regarding the provision of the
Constitution of the United Ststes, whenever q
person shall come and reclaim him, or any one
by authority from him, then by the laws of
that State he may be taken back, but not 9TH
erwlse, nor by anybody else.
Ruf lie fnr To
fer to the history of slavery in the past, nor I'M
dertake to say what think of the constitution.
atty of the law, nor undertake to say what our
duties are. The Legislature gives liberty to
every man within the limits of the State, and
does not consent that any man shall be taken
away excepta as pointed out by the Constitution
of the United States. Jones was not here as a
bondman, but was free, witha freeman's rights.
His rights are guarded by the enactment of
1856; but it says if his owner come and claims
him, he shall have the rights of any other |
man, and held as a free man here.
The Legislature evidently designed to ac-
cept the provision of the Constitution, and to
yield nothing more against the liberty of the |
citizen. Therefore it seems to me that these
defendants had no authority whatever, indie
pendent of that authority of the owner of the
slave. The defendants might regret the loss
of some person in Florida, and might them.
selves be subjected to inconvenience by the
presence of the slave on board the ship, and
might desire to take him away, but they could
not do it without this authority. They may
have acted with good motives, but that is not
the consideration. If without authority they
took him from the State, with the intent of
carrying him into servitude Although they
might think it was right, it was nevertheless a
violation of the law.
The jury, after being out little more than an
hour, returned verdict of acquittal, resting,
twas well understood, upon their doubts as to
their jurisdiction in the case