The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-04-08
THE PHILADELPHIA FUGITIVE SLAVE
CASE


the alleged fugitive arrested in Harrisburg is not
Daniel Dangerfpd of Loudoun county Vir-
ginia, but Daniel Webster, of Harrisburg and he
has accordingly, set him free.
This has been an extraordinary case-one of the
causes cetebrc of history. Not from the feeling
winch has been SO intensely manifested-but from
the singular chain OF circumstances which almost
seemed to condemn him, and the peculiar nature
OF the testimony of identity that finally set him
free.
The argument of counsel was continued through
the whole of Tuesday night, and, at five min
utes to six o'clock, in the gray hour of the
morning dawn, the court adjourned. The po-
lice who had been on duty during the night
were dismissed until three o'clock by the chief and
the crowd slowly dispersed
In the afternoon immense crowd congregated
IN the vicinity of the Court house long before the
hour OF commencing the case. 1t is estimated that
there were about 5000 persons, majority of whom
were colored collected in the middle of the street
In the event OF the prisoner being remanded, abun-
dant preparations had been made by the Mayor
and Chief of Police to prevent a rescue The ave-
nues leading to the court room were lined with
police, while there several hundred officers in
tne vicinity waiting to be called if their services
| were required.
In the court room there were the same familiar
| iaces-woman maintaining here ascendancy in num-
bers. Lucretia Mott, j. Miller McKim, Passmore
| Nllllamson and many other prominent Abolition
| lists and friends of the man, were also present
| The man Daniel Webster sat in his usual seat, on
the south of the room, surrounded by the officers of
| the marshal He looked very WE'LL but appeared
unconscious OF all that going on, seeming to
take no interest further than to examine the faces
| OF the curious throng around him.
| The Court was opened at 4 ?. NJ. little DELAY
| was occasloned in waiting for Mr.. Earle, who ar
rived IN few minutes, and the Commissioner with
out any further prelimnaries proceeded to deliver
| his decision amid the deepest silence
Many things, said the Commissioner, had occur
| RED during the course of the examination of this
| case that had panied him. The duty he was called
| on TO execute was plain and simple one. He
came there not as an actor or athlete, to amuse
| the crowd that congregated around the court
room; he came simply to execute the provisions of
| the law OF the country; and he expected while in
the performance of that duty to be assisted as far
as was possible, by the eminent gentlemen who ap-
! peared before him as counsel in the case. He had
| not received this aid to such degree as he had
| right to expect. Appeals had been made to his
| sympathy, his feelings and his heart Rhetorical
Iourishes, lnslnuations and he might say threats,
| mad been employed against him. with much fire.
| quency. Virginia, the mother of Statesmen, had
been illuminated her laws reviled and her sons in
suited. he had heard pathetic appeals about mar
| tyrdom, and saw thrilling pictures drawn of the
pestilence, famine, slavery and DEATH and all this
intended to influence him in the course he was to
| pursue.
When the warrant for arrest of the prisoner had
peen issued, and he had been brought before him,
| he expected to hear the case calmly quietly and
aelloerately IN his own private Office 1t was ad-
Journed 10 the jury room, and as he knew from the
manner OF counsel, and from the preparations they
| /
show case, he determined to hear everything that
would De sald by them, no matter to what license
OF speech they would depart. He believed in the
largest liberty OF speech; he believed in permitting
counSel TO use every advantage the law and profes-
sonal courtesy allowed them and particularly while
In the exercise of magisteral functions he was slow
to interfere.
A circumstance had arisen in the course of the
testimony on which he had been requested to re-
tire 1t was said that, having acted as an attorney
he could not rightly act as a Judge The facts of
the case were very plain. He had been assaied for
TINS conduct in the choicest language by of the
gentlemen for the defence. 1t must have been evi-
dent to that gentleman during the cross-examina-
ton OF the witnesses that the charges made against
the Commissioner by him were unfounded Mr.
hopper, IN private and gentlemanly way, had
called upon him, and was informed of the real facts
| OF the case. Before Mr.. Hopper retired he must
have consulted his friend who had made this attack
| and the explanation he had volunteered in his own
defence to Mr. Hopper must have been present in
| his mind.
| Inc Commissioner then proceeded to make a
| statement he had carefully prepared explaining
| MS own connection with the matter, showing that
in giving The advice he had given in relation to the
validity of the documents brought from Londoun
county, Virginia, he was but doing his duty under
the law. The paper that Mr.. Rogers had shown to
MI MN was only the power of attorney. That was
the only paper he examined, and it was proper he
should examine it before issuing a warrant In
this circumstance his recollection was borne out 5y
the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Rogers and Mr.
Guilck copy of the record was also shown him,
| ana on examining the papers very carefully after
they had been amended, he granted his warrant and
| the fugitive was brought before him. J. Miller
Mchim, as the next friend of the fugitive was quail
lhed, and as he stated that he could produce evil
| dence from Harrisburg in a dav or two that would
tend to liberate the prisoner, he granted the con-
tinuance as matter of justice to the accused.
whose liberty depended on the result of the decs-
ION. second hearing was had, and another ad-
Journment was granted with great reluctance and
only after he had been assured by counsel that they
needed time to consult with their client and that
one OF their most important witnesses were absent
NOW, after long and patient investigation il
became his duty to execute the functions imnosed
on him by the Constitution of the United States
And that duty would be executed without sympatbv
OF sorrow. lie iad aside all these feelings, as be-
meath the consideration of the magistrate He
looked upon the man before him in two LIGHTS
either as species OF property of certain value to
any one who might own him. man endowed
with lie and asking for that liberty which he claims
OF right. lie recognized this distinction and this
only. The compact under which the fugitive can
be restored to his master is a solemn compact one
nade win the states OF great nation, and as old
as the existence OF these States. He would exercise
no power other than that given by this compact
If this man was sent back wrongly if there was an
error made here and by this court, there is a pro
VISION IN the law OF Virginia providing for the res
titution of the man to freedom. That law nrovidn.
for the correction of any he might make un
Willingly But If he made in the iudg-
ment OF this case, and made that error wifulv all
the opinion of the world would sink into signifi-
cance, before the silent, poignant and eternal tor
ture of guilty conscience.
The tenth section of the act of 1850 provides an
ample way for a Shareholder to get back his slave
And following the provisions of that section, the
path OF the Commissioner was clear 1t had been
contended in this case that the record offered in
evidence as proof of the identity and ownership o.
Danlei Dangerheld, was not in accordance with the
law. He had examined this carefully, and on turn.
ing to the act of Congress, was informed that the
claimant must produce conclusive evidence IT
need not De particularly exact or precise, but il
must be conclusive. What might appear defective
to pennsylvania lawyers, and be rejected in Penn
sylvania courts would be perfectly proper and lust
in Virginia. However defective this title might
appear to US, it had been passed upon bya Virginia
court and with the certificate and seal of that court
affixed, it was valid document, and as such he re-
ceived it.
The identity of the man was the last and the
main point IN the case. On this point he had the
record, his description and the testimony of four
or hve witnesses on either side together with two
or three introduced rebuttaI. He found that
the man Daniel was last by Patton in July,
1854 and the record told him he escaped in No,
vember, 1854. 1t has been argued that this is sur
plusage, not evidence. He did not think So The
description of man, though sometimes deceptive,
was the best evidence that could be offered in a
case like this. slight deviation in the descrip-
ton could weigh but little in the mind of a Com.
missioner, provided the other points were correct
He had looked at this prisoner several times dur
ing the hearing-ooked at him as he was walking
somewhat taller than the man described in the re-
cord as being five feet seven inches To satisfy
himself on this point, he had measured him-mea
sured him CAREFUL y-and had found his height tc
be five feet ten inches with his boots on and five
feet eight inches and nine-tenths with his boot.
off.
In examining the testimony of the claimants wit
nesses he would dwell more particularly on that of
fered by DR.. Luckett and Sanford p Rogers. i
was the custom OF lawyers to take one or two wit
nesses representing their case on account of thei
position, intelligence and the bearing of their tes
timony on the matter in issue. Following that ex
ample, he would examine that offered by these two
gentlemen minutey. One was man of much in
teligencea resident of this city, and disinterest
ed witness in the claimants behalf. The other was
the friend and relative of the claimant and her
legal representative here. The Doctors testimony
was clear and conclusive as was that of Mr. Rogers
The former had known the man Daniel Dangerfeld
had attended him in sickness, but had not seen hin
since 1852. Mr.. Rogers knew him, but had not seer
him since l943. Another creditable witness testi
fies to having seen him in the month of july 1854
and the record says he left Virginia in November
1854 Yet there witness who testified tC
knowing the prisoner who is claimed to be Daniel
Dangerfeld, in Harrisburg, in 1858, and the person
who testiiies thus is entitled to belief.
He had looked at this witness-Dr William NJ
Jones-wben on the stand, closely. He had listened
to the long and close cross-examinaton by the
learned gentleman, Mr.. Brewster; and he mu st say
that the old mans bearing favorably impressed
him with his truthfuness and sincerity. He had
been incorrect about the dates of many important
facts in our history, it had been urged but this die
not njure the subj ject matter of his evidence The
Commissioner had found it, as the result of his ex