Year: 1859

Alderman VS.. Booth (the Wisconsin Fugitive
Caso) that it was the duty of the Marshal to
make known the authority by which he holds
the slave, and that he shall not deliver him 10 To
the state authorities and that it would be his duty
to resist the endeavOrs of any judicial author.
ity TO obtain possession Of the fugitive The
State laws have no province in such cases, and
this defendant Langston and this man Patton
who talked Of a wri, of HaLeas Corpus, and of
the enforcement of the constsble's writ upon
the party that had possession of John, made
use Of mere legal sham which could have no
power in the case.


If man 90 one, nine or ten miles with a
company in pursuance Of a common purpose
be his active partic patton in carrying out IN It
purpose ever so little, then he becomes respon.
sible for each and every action committed by
that crowd, and 1t needs no formal eombina.
tlon-no. appointment of a leader or agreed
plan of action is necessary to make common
purpose. The question as to the degree of par
Iiclpation by any one Of the crowd is one for
the court to pass upon and not for the Jury


If the defendant was there, he is guilty, and
the Court alone must pass upon the degree Of
guilt. 1t has been 'ho"n that Langston, 80
far from backing out and working against the
purpose of the crowd waXod stronger and
stronger for the attainment of the purpose Of
rescuing the slave John


As to the authority upon which the negro
was held at the time of the rescue it matters
not whether the warrant held by Lowe was lc-
gal OF not. Jennings was the agent of the
owner, and as such he could pursue aud retain
fugitive and call to his aid any officer whom
he might choose to employ He held the au
thofitY for the arrest oithe boy John, and Lowe
was acting under his direction and guidance,
IN doing which he needed no power Of author
lty No officer can pursue or reclaim-this can
be done only 10y the owner or agent If Lowe
did arrest the boy before the rescue, he had
placed him in the custody OF Jennings under
whose control he undoubtedly was at the time
of being rescued by the crowd No one will
doubt that Jennings could have discharged
the negro on reaching Wellington, and that in
that case the Marshal would have no power To
prevent it. With some argument on this point
Judge Belden closed his plea, having spoken
about three hours


Mr.. GRIswoLD commenced the argument for
the defence The interest and novelty of this
case were noticeable Although this District
contains over q million inhabitants, vet this was
but the second case that had ever occurred with
IN It, OF an offence against the Fugitive Slave
Law, and 1t must be tried and considered with
care and sober judgment, with no outside inlu
ences OF bias. The grond boon of a fair and
HPNAbieA July AlAl WIS uuG 70 lle utltuQduL,
although he belongs to a class which is consid.
cred as an outside class, not entitled to the du
ties and privileges OF an American citizen For
this reason especial care shocld be taken to look
at the case with no feelings Of prejudice, but
with the utmost fairness as between man and
man,


The question Of the Ownersl ip of the boy
John by Bacon, according TO the laws and
usages of the State of Kentucky, or of the es
cape of the boy to Ohio, he did not propose to
discuss These questions he would leave to the
consideration of his colleague.


As to the validity of the Power of Attorney,
which purports TO be issued by the Clerk of Ma
son County, he claimed that it had not been
shown that it was issued according to law, for
while the law provides that an officer shalt take
an acknowledgment, it is clearly shown that in
this case Deputy Clerk made out the papers,
and therefore the Power of Attorney was in
valid


As to the arrest Of the boy John by Marshal
Lowe, that officer having arrested the negro,
held possession of him, aud had no power to
deliver him up except to set him at liberty. Ii
the negro was once in the custody OF the Mar
shal then the Marshal was no longer a servant of
the agent, but was an officer Of the law, and as
such held the negro in possession of the law
Will it be held by the District Attorney that
when a negro has been arrested by an officer OF
the law, if any man dares to call his authority
IN question, and seeks TO investigate the legal-
ty of the possession, that that man who thus
questions is guilty Of treason and violation of
the Fugitive Slave Law Such seems to be the
absurd position of the District Attorney. Does
the decision of the Supreme Court 20 to that
extent


But there is no testimony except that Of
Lowe himself that the authority of the posses
sion of the negro was transferred from Lowe to
Jennings. None of the many other witnesses
can testify that single word was said as to
this transfer


The evidence of Jennings, excited and worked
upon by his fears as he was, cannot be defin-
itely relied upon as proof of the circumstances
Of the rescue. His testimony is contrndictcd
by number of credible and reliable witnesses
The counsel would not attempt TO deny that
there was a rescue of the negro but it was not
shown that the defendant h8 1r took any part
in this rescue, and the beneh # any reasona-
BILE doubt must be given towaru his acquittal -
Although the prosecution have charged the dc.
lendant with going to Wellington for the eK
press purpose OF resoung this negro, yet they
have not offered particle of proof to establish
that position His going TO Wellington is no
proof This guilt for numbers of the witnesses
for the prosecution who have been upon the
stand went TO Wellington on that day. No
proof IS offered that the defendant had any con
nectiOn with those who rescued the negro II
is by no means shown that more than a small
portion Of the crowd about the house was en-.
gagged in the rescue, and no proof has been shown
that LangstOn was one Of those who were thus
engaged, and he could be there during the whole
time and yet not be guilty, for it was abun-
dainty shown that there were q large number
there who were not guilty and yet were as ae-
tive in the crowd as the defendant had been
shown to be.


The counsel here reviewed the evidence which
had been offered to criminate Langston, show-
ing that there was far more convincing testi-
mony against Wood himself in his own eyi-
denoe than against Langston, and yet Wood is
not considered guilty, and neither can Langs-
ton be considered 30 as a result of such evi-
donco Many defective points in the evidence
against Langston were shown.


Recess taken until o'clock


AFTERNOON SESSION


Court convened at o'clock Mr.. GRIswoLp
continued his review Of the evidence offered
against LangstoH, showing many inconsisten-