The day book. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 1857-1867, 1865-07-29
BLIND TOM, THE SABLE MINIS.
TREL.

nance on Piana, delighted thousands of
our readers, gives anything connected
with him, peculiar interest, and induces
us to copy, from the Cincinnati Times of
the 25th inst, the following report of an
examination, III the Probate Court before
Judge Woodruff in which the status of
Tom is discussed.
To day Judge Woodruff announced his
decision in the habeas corpus proceeding
to deiermi ne the question of The Gust :
dilanship of "Blind Tom" the musical
prodigy the parties to the litigation be-
ing Tabbs Gross and General J. N. Be-
thune, the latter formerly holding Tom
as his slave, and claiming him now under
an indenture of apprenship issued in
Floyd County, Indiana.
| The Court remarked that an effort, by
no means unsuccessful, had been made
to show that Bethune had been seces-
sionist, and that he entertained the same
views as all other shareholders on the
subject of slavery.
To great extent he admits these al
| legations, but AYERS that since the South
has been whipped, he is now willing to
submit, and counsels obedience to the
Constitution and laws of the United
States-has been willing to emaneipate
the boy and his former slaves and to
make good his former promise, has execu.
ted deed of manumission, and taken
the oath of allegiance. Proof was also
made that he was humane man toward
his slaves and kind and amiable in private
life.
Upon this state of the evidence, what
are the rights of the parties and of the
boys The letters of guardianship held
by Gross, the Court considered utterly
void. The laws of Indiana, as in Ohio,
provide that the ward must be resident
of the State, while Tom was a mere bird
of passage, in the custody Of another per-
son, and neither had any notice that let
tiers would be applied for. The act of
Gross appeared to be one OF indecent
haste, and his claim must be rejected.
The claim of Gen, Bethune could not
be sustained on the ground of the inden-
ture alone: The parents resided in
State that had not yet thrown off slavery,
and would, if it could, still sustain it.
| Georgia had no law on her statute book
recognizing the parents as free people.
The emancipation clause had no doubt
done the work but as yet Georgia has
not said 'sAmen." Nor would the Court
l ha IN mfr Il
less one of personal nature where the
party claiming the benefit of it was a
foreign or domestic enemy but it was
not necessary to place the decision on that
ground, since the supremacy of the Con-
stitution and laws of the Union had been
fully INDICATED.
But this paper is contract OF hiring,
and is a good as such, if the parents had
the power to contract. That they had
this power could not be denied, unless
effect was denied to she proclamation OF
emancipation which the Court held did
abolish slavery in Georgia. II was not ne
cessary to show had all the forms of
valid contract, but enough fit shows that
the boy was in the consent of his parents,
for that shows he is not unlawlully res
trained of his libefy.
| If Mingo or Charity, the father or
mother of the boy, were before the Court,
complaining that they had been imposed
upon by any msrepresenI atoms of Be-
thune, they should be heard with the ut
most indulgence but when stranger
comes in such questionable shape and
with an eye merely 10 pecuniary ad-
vantage, his claims should be watched
closely.
1t is no abuse of the boy that his pa
rents, err those to whom they may hire
him, make his talents available in the
acquisition of pecuniary gains, provided
the proceeds are honestly appropriated.
| If Bethune does not perform his con-
| tract, the courts are open for redress
But my jurisdiction does not extend to
that subject.
1t is alleged that General Bethune SYM
pathized with the rebellion. and 10 some
respects co-operaed with the leaders
how far snot clearly shown-but that
he was an advocate of the so. called South
ern Contederacy he does not deny. While
the infaluation that led venerable mani
of unusual Intelligence and kindness of
heart to countenance such madness and
crime was be lamented, yet the res.
possibilities of the judicial position forbid
the Court % give way TO passion orpreju-
dice; and it was not left with them tol
say whether he had committed the ua~
pardonable sin,
I'll Co.. Il e.. 1 A Al