Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-12-07
AW AITlNG ACTION
The Testimony and Arguments in
the Slack Case Closed
ATTORNEY WILSON'S ARGUMENT
MerciIess in His Araignment Of
Mrs. Stacks Conduct.
EARLY DECISION PROMISED

When Mr.. A. S. Worthington concluded
| his argument before Judge Hagner yester-
| day afternoon in the contest over the chill
| dren of the late VIM. H. Slack, who be-
| queathed the custody of them to his sister,
| Mrs. Addie Slack Perrine of Trenton, N. j.,
| the hearing was adjourned until 1890 this
| morning. Mr.. Worthington spoke on be-
| half Of the mother of the children, Mrs.
| Mary Kemble Slack, and this morning Mr..
| Jere M. Wilson, on behalf of Mrs. Perrine,
made the closing argument in the case, be-
| ing attentively followed by the great
| throng which crowded the court room.
Mr.. Worthington occupied somewhat
more than an hour in his argument yester-
! day afternoon, being particularly severe in
| his denunciation of Mrs. Perrine for MAX
! ing against Mrs. Slack charges which he
characterized as being false az they
| were shameless. He tainted Mr.. Calderon
Carlisle with being so poor an actor that
in his argument he disclosed the fact that
he really appeared in the case not as the
counsel of the next friend of the children,
but, as he CWorthington) believed. as the
attorney Of Mrs. Perrlne. Mr.. Carlisle ex-
planned that he had been the attorney of
the father of the children, but Mr.. Worth
| ington retorted: He is dead now, 80 he
cannot have employed you in this case"
The action OF Mrs. Perrine in removing
the children from out of the Jurisdiction of
the New Jersey courts to this city. while
the habeas corpus proceedings instituted
there by their mother werestill pending, was
also severely condemned by Mr.. Worthing
ton. If, your honor" he exclaimed, this
woman SO treated the New Jersey court, is
it not fair to presume that she will SO
treat the courts here, should she fear & n
unfavorable decision? She and her nus
band, for they were made parties to the
New Jersey proceedings. ran away from
there, placing their counsel there in the
10 n
release them from further connection with
the case. And yet, your honor, it Is such
people who dare here to come into court
OF equity. Are their hands clean? Are
they not fugitives from New Jersey justice
at this very moment? Have not orders for
their arrest and commitment TO Jail been
issued there? And should they not be
turned over to the officer who holds the
warrants for their arrest?"
Against Their Own Mother.
One of the very worst features in the
whole case, declared Mr.. Worthington, was
the fact that the two little girls had been
placed in the position of filing in a court of
record the most shameful of charges
against their own mother. Every one knew,
he remarked, that the children could not,
because of their tender age. understand the
nature of those charges, and all the world
should know that it really their aunt,
Mrs. Perrine. who added to their misfor-
tunes by giving to the world through the
newspapers the widest publicity of those
infamous accusations. The charges We're
in substance said Mr.. Worthington, of
such character as to cast a doubt, II true,
upon the paternity of the little ones them
selves. for their mother was charged with
being not only a woman of general I'M
| chasteneSS, but also being with
even less shame in her desires than the
| brutes. And yet" remarked Mr.. Worth
| fngton 1.-The people who make these hor
| ribly false charges against mother. and
connect her little ones names with them,
| calmly ask your honor to let the little in
| Tocents remain in their custody! Why,
ycur honor, such beings are not fit to have
| the custody of kittens. Can 1t be possible
| that a court of equity will permit little
| children to remain in the custody of such
beings a day longer than may be required
| to pass upon the question? Surely not, for,
| even on their own testimony, the rights of
| this mother to her children are 1000 to /
| against Mrs. Perrine. Does not your honor
| know that at this very moment the woman
| in charge of these little ones. and having
| the care of them, Is the negro woman who
| made charges against their mother SO mon
! strousy Infamous and indecent that l re-
| frain from mentioning them in the presence
| of women?'
| The Serynnts' Testimony.
| Mr.. Worthington remarked that it was
| a rather significant fact tina. the negro
| servants including the one whose dep
| ostion the court refused to consider had
| been retained in the employ Of the Perrnes.
! Their testimony out of the case, he said,
there remained nothing in it, and against
| such testimony and that of Mrs. Perrine
| and her father had been submitted on be-
| half of Mrs. Slack the testimony of Mrs.
| Gen. Sheridan, Miss Alice Riggs and other
! well-known people of the highest charac-
| ter. Also the testimony of the four ply
| scians who had attended the family dur
| ing every day of Mrs. Stacks married life.
and covering her innermost life. as only
| the physician does. The testimony of these
l
+ vile creature but as a loving. devoted
| mother. highly esteemed by all who knew
| her, and guilty at time Of any of the
Infamous charges so cruelty made against
| her.
An Inhuman Law.
Referring to the contention of the other
| side that the old English statute of twelfth
| Charles II is in full force and effect in the
| District Of Columbia today, authorizing
| and empowering a father to dispose Of the
| custody of his children by will, even
| against their mother, Mr.. Worthington
| characterized the law as an inhuman one.
| He also denied that it is the law here to-
| day, asserting that no court in Christen-
dom would today enforce such law, tear
ing from a mothers arms to place in the
arms of others the children her agony
brought into the world.
IF that be the law here today remark
ed Mr.. Worthington then mother. fit or
unfit morally can be robbed of her chill
privilege remaining to her of seeing them
row and then in court or at the home of
another. But l proclaim to the thousands
of mothers in this District that such is not
the law in force here today, and l clal-
lenge the ether side to cite a single case to
disprove my assertion. The law in force
here today, as l understand it, is one of
humanity, while the law the other side
contends for is inhuman. Which will you
enforce, your honor? But the real CUES
ton at issue is not the alleged right of Mrs.
Perrine to the custody of the children under
their fathers will. 1t is. what is best for
these innocent little ones? And 1 say. your
honor, that when you find these horrible
charges to be false, you will give these lit
tie children to the woman who bore them,
will or no will. and will allow Mrs. Perrine
| to seek the children of Some other woman"
In conclusion, Mr.. Worthington asked
that the injunction prayed for on the other
side be refused. for if it should be granted
Mrs Slack would be denied the right, guar
anteed by the Constitution, of the great
and humane writ of habeas corpus. All
she asked was that she be allowed to pros
ecute the habeas corpus proceedings insti-
tuted by her here for the recovery of her
children. The writ is one of right. and an
,i,rI,t rail ho cd