Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1859-07-01
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE IN THE DIS
TRlCT OF COLUMBIA.

he telegraph gave a totally erroneous ac-
count Of case under the fugitive slave law,
which came before the courts at Washington,
on Tuesday and Wednesday Of last week,
and as the case is somewhat singular one.
we copy full report from the National IN
teNigHcer:
"A case of peculiar character and more
than ordinary interest, both to the profession
al and lay readers, came before Judge Nor
rick on Tuesday morning. the facts Of which
appear to be as follows: John Wilmer. of
Washington County, Maryland, bought GER
tain slaves from the late General Lingan, Of
Maryland. One of the women thus purchased
gave birth to a child who was named Agnes
Robinson. The mother of Agnes was set
FREQ at some time after the birth of Agnes
Agnes herself was also munumittcd by her
master, John Wilmer, in lS47. shortly al-
tcrward Agnes came 20 Washington City to
live with the full knowledge of Daniel Wit
mer, the son of John Wilmer, and in about
the year 1919 herself became a mother. Dam
lei Wilmer now claims Agnes and her child
as fugitives, asserting his property in them
under bill of sale dated in 1874. The
father, John Wilmer, died last summer and
the son made no claim on Agnes until after
the death of his father Further, the bin of
sale under which he claims was never record
ed in Washington county, Maryland. until
the present month, though the girl had visit
ed for a considerable time Daniel Wilmer
place of abode i'm that county.
The claimant, In support Of his claim. pro-
duced "a copy Of record Of the Orphans
Court of Washington county. Maryland, con-
sisting OF the petition of the claimant not
sworn to, and the dispositions of Benjamin
Wilmer setting forth that Agnes had been
the slave of John Wilmer, the father of
claimant, and was sold by him to claimant by
bill of sale on the 9th Of May, 1914, aud was
afterwards in the possession of the claimant
and that she passed out of his possession
about twelve years ago. The record contain
ed no copy of the bill of sale. The original
was not produced hero, and it did not appear
from the copy to have been acknowledged or
recorded. The deposition did not allege that
Agnes or her child had fed from labor
There was no Judgment of the Orphans
Court and the proceedings in that Court
were confined to Agnes, the child not being
included
Mr. Dayidge, who appeared for the respon-
dents, offered in evidence a duly certified
copy of deed of manumission from John
g
1877, duly acknowledged and recorded, aud
the free papers issued to her thereupon and
he offered witnesses to show that claimant
never had possession of Agnes as his slave !;
that the bill of sale had been virtually aban-
doned by the father and his son, the claim
ant that shortly after her manumission she
came to this city, lwherc her mother who
had also been manumittcd by John Wilmer.
resided, and has since, with the knowledge
of the claimant, lived here as "a free woman,
and been treated and recognized as such; and
that Agnes was in no sense fugitive, and
could not be remanded in this proceeding.
3 Judge Morick ruled that under the tenth
? section of the fugitive slave law, the copy OF
the record of the Orphans Court was con-
elusive, and that the only open question was
that of identity lie therefore excluded the
evidence offered on behalf of the negroes.
1t was objected that the copy of the record
could not be conclusive, not being in accor-
dance with the tenth section. which relates
= to courts of record, which the Orphans
+ Courts Of Maryland are not that the Or
phans' Court had, under the law of Maryland,
J limited jurisdiction, confined to testament
tary and other specific subjects, and plainly
had no power to act in the premises that
the act Of Congress, with view to the pro-
5 lection of the rights of the negro, did
e not embrace every court, but had refer
ence to the State tribunals having com.
mon law jurisdiction, and of higher dignity
@ and with authority to entertain complaint
of this nature and that no act of Congress
could confer jurisdiction on State tribunal
G The Judge oyerruled these objections, anc
, held, as above, that the copy of the recorc
r. was conclusive. The copy OF the record held
t to be conclusive did not embrace the child
It she not being mentioned in it ; and it wa,
o urged that as under the ruling of the Judge
G this proceeding was auxiliary to the proceed.
70 ings in the Orphans Court of MARYLAND, and
II as the child was not embraced in that pro-
n ceeding, she could not be delivered to the
claimant; and that if, on the other hand thi,
C proceeding was original, then, under the sixth
e section OF the act, it was competent to show
a that the child was not runaway, and wa,
e free Evidence TO that effect was offered, az
e it had been previously offered in the case o
G the mother.
+ The Judge held the matter under advise
d mont until Wednesday morning. when hi
p ruled that the record was equally coucusiv,
IS upon the child, and refused to allow the in
d PRODUCTION of any evidence save such as woul,
= go to show that she was not the child borl
IS since the residence of Agnes here
rs Agnes aud her daughter were then deliv
e cred into the custody Of the claimant.
r. Counsel for claimant, Messrs. J. NJ. Carl
e isle and John McCutheon; for respondent
Is Messrs. Walter ID. Dayidge aud Asbur,
o LLOYD"
d If the above report is correct, and the re
IS spectability Of the paper from which we TAX
y it is a sufficient authorization, the decision
'- is the most monstrous in the annals of on
3, courts, and Judge Merriek ought to be i'm
d peached. 1t appears by this report that
IS woman of color, who had been regularly man
a united is remanded to slavery, on the pro
s. duction of a record from an inferior court
n consisting of a petition, not sioorn TO- settinl
e forth that the claimant had bill of sale q
t. the woman, dated anterior to the deed o
manumission. The original of this bill o
t, sale was not produced, and it did not appea
20 from the RECORD that it had at any time BEEF
y acknowledged or recorded. The woman ha
It enjoyed her Liberty with the full knowledg
IS OF the claimant for twelve years. There wa
a nothing in the whole record under which
t sheep could have been held in any court /
- Massachusetts, yet this United States Judg
e actually refused to receive any testimou
: showing that the woman had been regular
~ 4