Arizona republican., 1914-06-29
TRIAL OF SLAVE ANDERSON

derson, just prior to the Civil War, created much excitement not only in
 the United States but in Canada and in England. John Anderson escaped
 from his master and while being pur- sued killed Senaca Diggs, one of the men who attempted to capture him.
 He reached Canada and demand was made upon that country for his eXtradition, but there was much hag-
 gling as the Canadian authorities
 were not willing to return him to the states. They appealed to the home
 government in England, and when
 that government suggested that Can ada had no right to pass upon a case of this kind and that it must
 bs tried in London, the Canadian government resented this interference as to what they considered was their own rights in the matter.
 The story of the case, briefly told,
 is as follows: In 1853 there lived in
 Missouri in slavery John Anderson and his wife. In that year they were
 both sold by their master, Moses
 Burton. The former was purchased
 by farmer named Mcdonald and
 the wife was sold to another man.
 Samuel Brown, about forty miles
 away. Mcdonald decided to sell An
 derson again, and the colored man,
 fearing that he was going to be wide
 ly separated from his wife, ran away
 from Mcdonald. He was seen lurking
 in the neighborhood of the Brown
 home, where his wife was q siave,
 and he was charged with being a
 runaway.
 When Anderson found that he was
 about to be taken and returned to
 his owner, he ran away and a posse
 followed him. In this party was q
 man, named Seneca Diggs. When he
 found himself cornered, and in order
 to get away, Anderson killed Diggs
 and finally succeeded in reaching
 Canada through the then under
 ground railway as the system was
 popularly known.
 Merely as fugitive slave, Ander-
 son would have been safe in Canada
 under the protection of Great Britain.
 But in 1S42 the two countries had
 united in a treaty known as the
 Ashburton treaty, which agreed to
 the extradition of murderers. Ander- son lived in Canada unmolested until
 1880 when he was recognized. There unon inc officers of the state of Ms
 souri took proceedings to bring him hack He was taken before a justice
 of the peace at Brantford and was committed to jail to await action' The governor of the province being ahsent. United States Secretary or State asked for Anderson's return. Now the Ashourton treaty, while effective in most respects, ran coun- ter to the laws of the two countries ;n this case for the British law held that A man who attempted to deprive another of his liberty without the execution of any legal warrant was taking unlawful chances, and that under such conditions homicide was iustifiable. but this doctrine was op- nosed to the American law. Thus the laws of the two countries were at variance.
 The head of the Canadian govern ment being in England, he was ap- pealed to for instructions. His reply was that those in charge should exer- else such measures as are authorlZeo bv the laws Of Canada. In the mean time the friends of Anderson were not idle. They made application to the court of the queens bench in Canada for a writ of habeas corpus and the legality of Anderson's deten- ton was ably argued before the | court
 The two judges of the queens bench differed in their opinion and delivered their judgment at great length. The chief justice contended that the law of England made it murder for a man killing another for l attempting to arrest him under legal warrant and the law of Missourl authorized any person to bring In colored man, who was suspected or being a runaway slave Diggs, there fore. was acting under legal authority as much as if he had been armed with a process. Justice Mclean held that the prisoner had wilfully, mali
 ciously and feloniously stabbed and killed Seneca Diggs, and for this or fense the keeper of the jail at Brant- ford is commanded to receive the said John Anderson into his custody and hold him until he is safely de- livered in due course of the law. His Lordship, the governor general, examined the testimony minutely and took the point that the prisoner was arrested in the first instance on an insufficient complaint, that he was detained without sufficient warrant, and on insufficient evidence and no definite charge and, therefore, thought the prisoner entitled to his discharge.
 The majority of the court being or the opinion that the detention was legal the prisoner was remanded to jail. Notice was immediately given for an appeal to the court of errors and appeals in Upper Canada. The case of the colored man met with great sympathy in England, and the British Foreign and Anti-Slavery So- ciety took prompt steps to vindicate the principles and objects of their pe- culiar creed. The case was taken up