The Findlay Jeffersonian. [volume] (Findlay, Hancock County, Ohio) 1870-1881, 1874-11-06
HOW SALMON ?. CHASE CANE 70
2E z SENATOR.

ia letter TO friend. Mr.. Chase give,
the following interesting account of an
event in his career. which gained him
the SenatOrship. We extract it from
"Warden's Life of Chase"
WASHINGTON. March I6. 1864.
MY DEAR Mr.. TROwBRIDGE: In
March, 1887, some anti-slaverv nen
called at my office in Cincinnati. and said
that woman named Matilda had been
seiZJd, and was about to he carried ont
of the State under the Fugitive Slave
Act of 1923, though. in reality, a free
woman. l inquired into the eircum-
stances. and found that she had been a
slave in Virginia, and that her master,
taking her with him to Missouri. had
stopped at Cincinnati on the boat, whicn
was fastened to the shore, at the public
landing, IN the usual way From this
boat Matilda had come up into the city,
with, or without, the knowledge and con
sent of her master. and found employ
ment, and was now a servant in the
house of James G.. Birney. Under these
circumstances she was claimed as a fu-
gitive slave; while, in her behalf, it was
insisted that, having come to the land
ing, with the consent of Eer master, and
being thus within the territorial limits of
Ohio, she could not be taken from
them without her own consent. / had
no doubt of the correctness of this DO
sition. and readily consented TO do what
| could to protect her. With this view,
| obtained n writ of hdbeds corpus, under
which she Was taken from those who
held her, under the writ issued by the
justice of the peace, and brought be-
fore Judge Este, the President Judge of
the Court of Common Pleas.
1.-The cause was heard by him with
courtesy and fairness, but like almost all
lawyers, and, indeed, almost all other
men at that time, he looked upon claims
to slaves as more entitled to favor than
claims to liberty. He heard me asserting
what believed 10 be the true principles
of constitutional construction, and legal
as well as natural right, with very much
the same sort of indulgence and indif-
ference with which kind hearted pro-
fessor of the AristOtelian philosophy
may be supposed TO have listened TO a
youthful disciple of the doctrine of the
earths motion around the sun On the
other side, the appeals of counsel for the
slave claimants were vehement and pas
sionate, and were supported by tile
prejudices and syInpathies of nearly the
entire community. The Judge decided
against the claim of Matilda, and she
was remanded into slavery. My argument
in her case was printed and quite widely
circulated, and, perhaps, contributed
something toward the formation of
juster opinions.
"Nor was this case without some eff
ftrtV fcr
happened that, III the audience, there
was a young student of medicine, then,
aud for many years aftsrward, a stranger
to me, full of generous sympathy with
the oppressed, who listened to my argu-
ment with great satisfaction. This
young student went to Europe and pur-
sued his studies in the schools of Paris
and other cities of the continent. When
he returned to the United States, he es-
tab!ished himself in one of the towns
of Northern Ohio, where lie practiced
his profession with great reputation and
success. He retained his early princi-
Piles, and enjoyed the confidence not
only of those who agreed with him in
opinion, but of tile whole community
in which he lived.
In 1913, this young physician was
elected to the Ohio Legislature, and was
one of the small number, who, independ-
ent of both parties, and willing to act
with either for the Advancement of their
principles, secured, through the coop
Grafton of the old line Democrats, the
repeal of the Odious code of oppressive
enactments against the colored people,
known as the BLACK Laws" and my
election to the Senate of the United
States. 1t was the argument in the Ma
tIlda case which secured the confidence
and attachment of DIR. Norton F.
TOwnshend, and his earnest advocacy
of my election.
1.-The Matilda case had another con-
nection of another character. Mr.. Bir-
ney, who had employed Matilda as a
servant, was indicted upon the charge
of having harbored her; for harboring
a slave in Ohio was then an offense un-
der the existing laws of the State. The
case was tried before the same Judge
who had heard the argument fOrMatilda-
defended Mr.. Birney, but he was found
guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of
fifty dollars. From this decision | took
an appeal to the Supreme Court, and
the case was again heard before that
tribunal There was a manifest defect
in the allegations of the Indictment, to
which had not even invoked the atten-
ton of the Court of Common Pleas. In
the Supreme Court purposely avoided
directing attention to this defect, be-
cause was anxious to have a decision
upon the main question, whether Ma
tilda, having been brought within the
State by her master, remained slave
If not a slave, Mr. Birney. of course,
did not harbor a slave.
'At this time, a rule of the Supreme
Court existed, prohibiting the publica-
ton of any reports of the arguments OF |
counsel, except upon the special discre-
ton of the Conrt. The report of the
case of the State against Birney shows
that the Court reversed the judgment of |
the Common Pleas, upon the technical |
ground to which their attention had |
not been directed, and directed the pub
lication of the argument, though not in !
the slightest degree touching the point
decided. The truth was, doubtless, that
the Court was satisfied that the judg-
ment ought to be reversed, and yet was
to meet the question presented
by the argument: and yet not only will
ing but desirous to have the argument
itself brought to the notice of the pro
fession through the reports.
81 think il is not too much to say that
this argument, as well as that upon the
habedS corpus for Matilda, had some in
fuence upon professional and general
opinions Yours trhly,
= p CHASE