The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1874-10-02
TIE VANzANDT CASE.

The following graphic account of this
famous case is from ''Warden's Life of
Chase"
John Vanzandt, who is the original
of the famous John Van Trompe in
Uncle Toms Co5ia. was an old man who
had emigrated from Kentucky, and
owned and occupied a small farm iii
Hamilton County. His means We're
slender. and his education limited; but
his heart was rich in benevolence, and
his honesty was doubted by none. He
was an abolitiOnist from principle and
from sympathy. lie believed that slave
holding was wrong. and his kindly ma
ture was promp. to succor the distressed,
and found especial qualification in aid
ing fugitives from the oppression of
slavery.
ION the night of Friday, 22d of April,
1872, a number of slaves from Kentucky
escaped into Ohio. Their escape was
probably voluntary. There are very
few cases, l believe, in which persons
other than slaves themselves have had
any thing to do in prompting, or even
assisting. their original flight. This
party of slaves consisted of nine persons.
ION reaching the Ohio, they, doubt
less. found friends. who conducted them
to Walnut Hills, in the vicinity of Lane
Seminary. There NanZandt, returning
from the Cincinnati market, where he
had been selling the products of his farm,
found them, and, moved by sympathy,
undertook to convey them, in his wagon,
to Lebanon or Springfield. One of the
slaves, Andrew, acted as driver. They
,,E
Cincinnati. by some rufiians, who, sus-
pecring them TO be fugitive slaves, un
dertook to seize them. They succeeded,
except as TO Andrew, tile driver, who
jumped from his seat and escaped.
Such was the temper of the times,
and such the countenance given, by the
decisions of the Supreme Court, to such
practices. that this abduction of persons
from this jurisdiction of Ohio into Ken
tucky could not be punished. \ prose-
cution was commenced against them,
and there was "a sort of trial as TO some
of them. The prosecuting attorney,
however. evinced little zeal, willie they
we're defended by Thomas COrwin and
John B. Weller, both men of marked
ability. They were acquitted, more by
the public sentiment than by the jury,
who rendered the verdict of acquittal.
..Vanzandt was sued by Jones, from
whom the slaves had escaped, for har-
boring and conceaIing them. | was
called upon TO defend NanZaEdt. and
very willingly undertook the cause, 1t
came to trial before Judge Mclean, at
Cincinnati. in july. 1872. The evidence
having been submitted on the part of
the plaintiff. n motion was made by
Thomas Morris. vino was associated with
me Ia the defense, 10 overrIIle the evi-
dence. on the ground that, admitting
all the facts proved, they established no
case of unlawful harboring or conceal
ment. and no notice to the defendant
that the alleged fugitives had escaped
from Kentucky into Ohio. These prop
ositions were fully discussed by Mr..
Morris and myself, on the one side, and
by Messrs. Fox and SonthGate on the
| other My argument occupied nearly
| three hours. and l really thought | had
established. TO the satisfaction of the
court. that. in order to charge a citizen
OF Ohio with the penalties denounced
by the Fugitive Slave Act against har-
boring and conceaIing persons escaping
from slavery. there must be proof of
actual notice, TO the person charged,
| that the objects of his charity had es-
caped from a slave State into the State
where he received them. The words of
| the Fugitive Slave Act itself were eX-
press. that, TO create liability TO pen
| atty. the acts charged must be after no
tice. and insisted that the words after
notice must be taken TO mean notice by
the claimant of the fact of escape. or, at
| least. actual notice given by somebody
| of that fact with a view to charge the
party notified. / think the general inn
| preston in the large audience OF intelli-
| gent gentlemen who listened TO my ar
| gument. was that these points. at least,
were established. Indeed, such was the
| impression made upon the mind of the
! plaintiff Jones. that lie came to me.
| after the adjournment Of court upon the
close of the argument. and said he was
sorry that he had brought the suit. and
should not have done so il he had not
been badly advised. The next morning.
however, scattered my anticipations.
The Judge came into the court and over
ruled the motion
Upon this. the cause went TO the
| Jury. and was again fully argued; but,
| under the law, as stated from the bench
there was no possible hope of a favora
bic verdict. 1t was against the deferd-
ant. with damages to the amount oi
81, 200
Il then made amotion for new trial.
| and another for an arrest of judgment.
They were argued together. The Judge
did not decide the motion in arrest, but,
in the course of his opinion upon the
other motion. stated principles which
would necessarily decide that motion ii
favor of the defendant. l did not press
the motion in arrest farther at that time,
nor did take the new trial
Besides this suit for damages, an