Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1885-07-26

son be examined and IL found sane he be
returned to bis family and fiends that the
Bethunes had been robbing him tor twenty
years under legal forms without her knoWt
edge or consent.
Bethune answered by simply presenting
the commitment under which he acted, and
the Judge decided that that was sufficient
The Court had said in 1870 that it vas salts
6ed that Tom was q lnnatic; he would not
examine him, because that sentence IN 1917
was conclusive, and the presumption was, II
be we're q lunatic in 1870. he was lunatc
in 1874 He therefore remanded Tom back
to the custody Of Bethune, aud added BY
way of emphasis, that James n. Bethune
was the only man who shouli have charge
of him. This was equivalent to declaring
By this Fauquier Judge That man wac has
once been declared lunstic must remain
lunatic forever, and that the COMMITTEES who
exhibited the lunatic in public, and realized
large sums from it, which he appropriated
to bis own use, was the only proper person
to be entrusted With the responsible duty.
The counsel for the mother. OF course,
excepted to this ruling. and set out their
exceptions in full The Judge signed the N,
and they form g part of the record IN this
case.
In this extremity the counsel for the
mother turned to the courts OF the Uulted
States They went before Judge Hughes
Of the Eastern District of Virginia with
new petition, setting forth that her son was
held in slavery, and bad not received the
benefit Of the emancipation laws OF the
the United States; that he was held IN IN.
voluntary seryitude without due process OF
law. Judge Hughes granted the writ, and
made it returnsble at Alexandra Virginia,
where he was holding a circuit court
At the hearing he decided that the sllega-
iton OF slavery was not sustained, and that he
had no right 10 examine into the finding OF
the court OF Fauquier county. he exsmln-
ed Tom TO illegal restraint, and Tom an
swered promptly that he wished to remain
with the Bethunes, that he was treated kind
IL; that he did not want to go with his
mother, that the people who were seeking
him would take away his piano and not al
lev him to play, and he did not know what
they would do with him. But when ques-
toned further By the Judge, at the sugges-
lion Of counsel for the petitioner, ne as
promptly replied that he was instructed by
he Bethunes to make these answers: that
the Bethunes told him his mother would
take his piano from him, aud would not let
him play, and that the Bethunes had told
him bis mother was with gang who would
do him any injury.
Judge Hughes, in his concluding re marks,
said If Tom were set at berry, it was evident
he would 90 back to Beihune. he could not
examine the question Of sanity, because be
had no jurisdiction in the case, the commit
ment of the court of Fauquier county being
conclusive on that question. Under all the
circumstances Of the case, he would remand
the prisoner to the respondent; but would
recommend that the petitioner appeal this
case to the United States Supreme Court.
The writ was dismissed, each party paying
its own costs.
Itappears from this statment that Bethune,
since the expiration of his contract With
Toms parents, has been under no legal
obligation to do more than feed and clothe
bis ward That contract expired bJ hmIts-
ton in 1870 since which time, as the
GUARDIAN or committee oftheillege1 lunstic,
Bethune has accumulated q fortune aud no
thanks TO poor old Charity Virgins, the mother
ofhis valuable property. The studied and it
seems, successful attempt to alternate tn 3
affections Of the child from the mother, is
the crowning infamy of this business.
Will not q Court of equity somewhere iu'
terpose 10 make Bethune account to Tom
for his earnings?