Huntsville gazette., 1885-07-25
Blind Tom and His Mother
Judge Hughes Decision. Surrender.
ing the Master Of Music to His
Manager.

The following Is the opinion OF
Judge Hughes, rendered in the U. s.
Circuit Court at Alexandra in the
suit of Blind Toms mother to recover
possession of her son from his mana
ger, Gen. Bethune
Charity Wiggins, mother of Thomas Wig
gins, or Thomas Bethnme, or "Blind Tom
files her petition. alleging, among other
things, that her son is held in slavery by
James N. Bethune, to whom both mohter
and son belonged before the proclamatien
of emancipation. Other allegations are IN;
in the petition. which do not touch the
case as it stands in this court. Tbs @nly
possible ground on which l bave jorisdic
ton of this petition is the single one of
Blind Tom being held as a slave. The Pc
toner is his mother. She and her husband
and Blind Tom. their son. were slaves Of
James n, Rethune, and resident with Beth-
une in Georgia When Tom was at the
age of l6 and had ceas to be slave by
proclamation, the petitioner and his father
entered suto a contract with James n. Beth
une by which they turned Tom over to Bethe
une to be employed in giving concerts Ih
contract lasted by express terms till Tom
was of age, namely, until May Is, 1870.
By this contract the mother abandoned
her maternal right of guardianship over
Tom, and negatived the idea that Tom was
still the slave Of B5thune. Ga the 25tb of
July, 1870, Bethune, having for some years
been a citizen of Virginia, and u resicent OF
Fauquire county, with Tom as member Of
his household, applied to the county CONT
of Fauquire for proceedings lnnatico in
onirendo, the result of which was an order
of that court declaring Tom to be luna-
tic, and committing hin to John G. Beth
une, q son of james N. Bethune, as his
committee. No objection was made to this
commitment by the petitioner. his mother,
until March last for a period of fifteen
her petition for a writ of habeas corpus be-
fore the Judge of the county conrt of Fau-
quire, assailing the the validity of the com
mltnent in 1870.
That court, on full argument and proofs,
overhauled tho objections Of the petitioner,
and remanded Tom to the custody of James
N. Bethune, ,who,o ,on the death Of John G. Beth
une, had been substituted as TOMS commit
tee. The action of that court on validity OF
this commitment of Tom is conclusive on this
court as to the question lunacy. No princi-
pie Is more firmly settled than the principle
that the writ Of habeas corpus cannot be used
as an appellate proceeding to induce one court
to review the ruling of another court of origi-
nal and competent jurisdiction.
ca n, therefore, have nothing to do with
the subject Of lunacy. NY only inquiry is
whether Tom is held as slave. do not not
see how the petitioner in this case, hisI moth
er, after her contract Of 1866 and her acquies-
c. nee for fifteen years in the action OF the Fau
quire court in committing Tom to Bethune,
father and son, can now insist that he is held
slave. He is in fine health, he is remarkably
well dressed, he seems happy and contented,
ls treats with decided aversion the idea OF
his being taken from the Bethunes. Evident
ly he is nofheld as a slave. l therefore have
no right or jurisdiction to remove him from
his present custody, and feel bound in the in
terest of humanity to remand him to the Gus
tody in which he was born. in which he has
lived all his life, and in which he is anxious
to remain. will sign an order remanding
him to the custody Of his committee, James N.
Bethune.
Tom, with his committee and the latter's
council, returned to Warrenton Friday night.