Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1861-02-02

the language Of Terence, who like poor Anderson
was himself an African slave, l would exclaim -
"Homo sum, humani nihil q me alenum puto'
(Cbeers) In word, forgetting all conventional
ism, and all State lines and national boundaries
will fall back on tho unsurrendered right of the
human brotherhood, the right, aye, and the obli
cation. of every man to bo every other mans kee
per (cheers) that great and eaUred right in tn,
presence Of which, to use Apostolic lahguagej mor
are no more strangers and foreigners to each 9th
er. (Cheers.) Mr.. Smith then proceeded to refer
more particularly to Anderson's case, and to dem
onstrato that, il the judgment Of the Court OIL
Queens bench was upheld Canada must be con
sidered as administering the law of slavery. Tc
show what was British Law aud British feeling on
the subject of slevery,he quoted eloquent passages
from Currah, Sheridan, Pitt and Brougham. But
that glorious British law in the case of Anderson
had been thrust aside to make room for the infer
nal slave law, and strange it was that il was Brit
ish hands that did this. lie prayed that British
hands might never again be so strangely employ-
ed. eSCheers.) lie asked, why was it that Auder-
son had not been tried exclusively by British law?
Why was it that in this British Province the
Court had, in Anderson's case, descended from the
glorious heights of British law to the dark hell of
slavery's law? He vindiUated Anderson's right
to do as he had done. Had an attempt been
made here to kidnap him, and he had turned and
slain one of his pursuers, he would have been
honored. Had he turned and killed them all, the
Courts of Canada would have Joined the people of
Canada in oxalting him to high place in the
heaven of British heroes. (Cheers) But 10 An-
dersons case it was said the courts were governed
by the Ashburton Treaty. Mr.. Smith proceeded to
show that there was nothing in the Ashburton
Treaty which required the rendition Of Anderson.
lie narrated what took place at an interview he
bad with Lord Ashburton on the day he sailed for
England, alter having negotiated the treaty, and
stated that the substance of his lordship's remarks
was that, under the treaty. the slave was not liable
to be reclaimed for Going anything he needed to
do In order to effectuae his escape from slavery.
lie showed that this too, was the doctrine recog.
nised by the British Government, shortly before
the negotiation CT tho treaty, il the Creole case,
and subsequently, in the debates which took place
in the Imperial Parliament during the passage of
the Act to give effect to the Ashburton Treaty.
lie contended further that The treaty could not
apply to fugitive slaves, because there was no
reason for believing that Lord Ashburton and Mr..
Webster intended to depart from the law of ma,
tions in this matter, which had never required the
of fugitiVes from justice on the ground
Of local crimes. Again. it could not apply to fu-
gitive slaves, because slaves were the captves OF
war; and there were no prisoners in an enemy's
country who had clea'er right than slaves had
to avail themselves of all possible advantages with
in their reach for accomplishing their escape
Further the court here would not apply the pro,
visions Of tie treaty with respect to robbery and
forgery to fugitive slaves. If slave, to effect his
escape stole horse boat. or made use of for
5ed passes or even forged money, the Canadian
Court would not send him back to be tried for
hose offences Why then should he be sent back
IN the charge of murder, because to make good
MS escape he had slain man who sought TO cap
ure him and return him to bondage2 He then
on the very narrow Interpretation pla-
,ed by the court on the words in the treaty, 'evi-
lence of criminality." He said the court had ac-
a two-fOld allegiance allegiance on
he one hand to British law, and on the other to
lave iaw-but its allegiance to British law was
merely in the matter of the techncalies of testi-
nony, while the allegiance to the slave law was in
espect to the very soul and substance of the case.
What pity was it-since the court had divided
ts allegiance-that it would not accord the large
hare Of its obligations to righteous British law
md the small share to the wicked slave law.
Cheers.l What pity was it, since it must make
division between Anderson and his enemies that
instead of giving Anderson the husk and his
nemies the kernel, it did not give him the kernel
md them the husk. (Cheers.) Mr.. Smith then
diverted to another reason for believing that Lord
Ashburton and Mr.. Webster never intended that
he three words should be interpreted by our
ourts as they had been interpreted. The treaty
vas negotiated in 1912. The first month of that
resr the first address ever made to the American
laves was put forth in great State Convention,
eld in central New York. Inasmuch as that
ddress inculcated the doctrine that the slave
night take without leave in his flight a horse,
,oat, food or clothing, it was much in the minds
nd mouths of NEE for months, and was ever the
ubject Of frequent and extended comments in the
,ubic press. The question was raised, was slave
aw valid lawi 1t was especially asked whether
was valid law between different states and ma
ions. Now, it was fair to assume that Lord Ash-
urton and Mr.. Webster answered this question,
y putting words into the treaty which should re-
ure British courts to look in such cases to the ma
ure of the offence, as we'll as to the kind aud mode
+ proof given to sustain il. The Chief Justice
aid it was very probable that in the framing and in
he ratification of this treaty an eye was had to the
fugitive slaves. But he seemed to think it was an
ye not to their protection but to their destruction
'ut be (Mr. Smith) must differ from the Chief in
his. He must think it was with an eye to their
rotectiOn-(cheers) land he thought that, there
pre-, it was carefully provided in the treaty that
ur courts should be required to govern themselves
such cases by reference to the law of the place
there the fugitive was found. loud applause
n the Creole case. Daniel Webster had argued
IL Il. L.. u - al