The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-02-20

THE CANADIAN FUGITIVE SLAVE CASE
Our readers have already been informed of the
discharge of the fugitive slave Anderson, at To-
ronto. He was brought before the Court Of Com
mon Pleas on Friday, on a writ of habeos corpus.
His counsel, Mr.. Freeman, submitted the following
points:
l. That the prisoner was entitled to writ, and
upon return to have inquiry by this court into
matters charged against him.
2. That the evidence is not sufficient to put An
derson his trial for the crime of murder, assum-
ing that he is entitled to the protection of British
law.
8. The treaty requires that the charge should
first be laid in the United States by federal officers,
and the evidence does not show that any charge has
been laid there against Anderson.
4. That, even if Canadian justices were bound to
administer Missouri law the evidence does not show
that that State had power to pass such a law
that proved before magistrates; and it will not
be presumed that she had that power, inasmuch as
she is but municipality in relation to other GO
Yernments, and the law is against natural Justice
5. The word 'murder'' in the treaty means mur-
der according to the laws of both countries and if
not, that the crime charged is TO be determined by
the laws of Canada.
Mr.. Freeman, on the fifth point. quoted from de-
bates in the British Parliament, to show the nten
ton of English statesmen in framing the treaty and
cited, also, various established rules of interpreta-
ton, and argued from them that the Interpretation
given by Chief Justice Robinson to the proviso in
'evidence" in the sentence "such evidence of
crminality as would justify apprehension and COM
mitment," means facts proven by testimony.
Mr.. Cameron, after a few words in support OF
Mr.. Freemans first point, to the prisoners right
to writ, proceeded to speak as to the Interpretation
of the statute. He cOntended that the statute must
not be considered within the category of remedial
laws, for principle therein involved applied only to
the construction of laws operating within our own
country. This statute must be considered by the
rules of justice, not of techncalites, so that the
nature of the offence charged may not be investi-
gated. If that were done, it would appear that the
| accused had, at most been only guilty of man.
slaughter and so could not be delivered up that
offence did not come within the treaty. Again:
Great Britain had engaged to give up criminals
guilty of murder, that crime was understood in
both countries. The State of Missouri asks for
rendition of fugitive slave upon a charge which
was murder only within municipality of the Uni
ted States. The law of murder in Missouri was
not the law of murder in the United States. 1t was
contrary to the Constitution man kept 10
slavery was deprived of his natural rights ana was
therefore at war with his oppressor Anderson
had been guilty of O political offence in killing
| Digges, and could not therefore be endered.
Considerable argument took place between judges
and counsel as to the suffciency of the original
warrant of the commitment, whether it clearly
specified the crime on account of which Anderson's
extradtion claimed, and their lordships stated
that they hoped to be in position to give deci
sion on that point on Saturday.
The proceedings lasted nearly nine hours.
On Saturday the final decision was given. The
court sustained the decision of the Court of Queens
Bench on the question of law, and was unanimous
in dischargng the prisoner technicality il
the commitment. Anderson is, therefore, set al
liberty