Year: 1859




ment necessary, but his duty to his client re-
quiTed him to express his views. IL need not
be said TO the Jury that such a case as this,
connected as il was with the political conditions
and questions of the country, had never been
known in this district. 1t was a case closely
connected with political considerations the
statute upon which it was based and the offence
charged were political questions merely. The
act charged upon the defendant was not an act
criminal in itself or morally wrong. II he be
guilty as be is charged, he cannot be regarded
by the Jury or the community in tile same
light as he who commits moral Oitences--the
murderer, the thief, or the man guilty Of arson.
He did not say that it was not equally the duty
Of a Jury 20 convict one who is charged with
committing prohibited act as to convict him
who has committed a moral wrong, but this
man, if convicted, cannot stand in the eye Of
the Jury, the Court or the public, in the same
light as he who has committed violation OF
moral as we'll as civil law Ii this defendant is
guilty it is apparent to all that his guilt was of
different hue from that of him who committed
deed to crafty selfish or revengeful purposes.
We may say that in the broad and political
sense it was wrong to do this act, and yet we
cannot regard him who commits such an act
which is morally right, as we do the felon or
the assassin. If then, you gentlemen Of the
Jury shall be compelled by your oaths TO find
the defendant guilty it will by no means lessen
your estimation of him as a man, and YOU would
be Just as ready to trust him to morrow as yes
terday before knowing that ho was engaged in
this deed


The evidence must show that this man has
been guilty fthe acts described in the indict-
ment We say guilty, but all the assembled
wisdom of the nation could never say that in
itself, the act of helping and assisting suffer
81 a. 80. 4
tude, was an act of turpitude. although the
state and exigencies of society may have re
qured, in the estimation of the convention that
first drafted this provision, that some such pro.
| lection should be extended TO those who own
| property in man. Why was it that such body
of men as set in that Convention whose every
pulse beat with the high and holy flow of lib.
erty, should enact such provision as this which
sent back to slavery those who had escaped in
to tree territory! Undoubtedly as the Anglo
Saxon race was the nation which had fought
for their liberty, and was to ever be inl the as.
cendant, this provision was made that the for.
chile right which existed in some btates 10
hold slaves, was temporarily provided for by
this enactment, The people have it in their
power TO rectily the legislation which passed
the law of 1850, aud thank God that the time
is probably not far distant when they will rec.
tify IL in the legitimate way which tha Consti.
tatiOn has provided.


As for himself the Counsel was freq to say
that as to the constitutionality of this enact
ment, we must be governed by the decision oil
the Supreme Court, and that Court having
expressed most clearly that this act ID consti
tional we must abide by that decision 80 long
as it is in force The argument and the deci
sion Of the Court will therefore be Upon the
grounds that this law must be considered as tn,
| law LU lon., aud atr0h n hn 81 ~ ~
But has the defendant been guilty in tie eye o
the law Whatever might be the political o
party views of any of the Jury, he knewIit woulC
be with feelings Of repugnance and opposed
their better natures that they would ifcempele'
by their cOnscionoes, return verdict ot guilty
lie knew that the Jury would judge impartial,
and fairly, and he knew, too that an bcquitta
would be in accordance with the persona
wishes of Jury, Court, and even the Distric
Attorney, whose duty il was 70 urge the cas-
of the Government Aud ii it 10 with reluc
tance that the Jury would return the verdict o
guilty against any of these men, especially mus
It be 80 in the case of this man, whos by hi
color is cut off from almost all the privileges G
an American citizen, whose only crime, it an,
crime there was, was that Of helping aIid aidin
a fellow man, of his own color and his ow
race la the case of the Mortara Boy in ltal
the great body of tke American people do nj
feel so stirred up as do the Jewish brethren
' the boy, and the same bond of kindred sympI
:. thy would prompt the defendant to asaist op
Of his own blood


!. The council then too * up the issues to
passed upon. The indictment first charges On
J. declares that the boy John owed setyi0s


Bacon in Kentucky, but there is no avermeI
in the indictment showing that he was legal


a slave. 1t is general law of slavery that q
child follows the condition Of the mother but
muatto may have had an African father and


white mother. How, then, can the Court 81


or assume that the law applies in ths car


The indictment should aver that this man had
colorcd or slave mother or that he owed servl


by virtue of tha laws Of Kentucky. The cou


sci would not ask the Jury TO go qu5o as I


in establishing the ownership as did GOV Pay
/. of Vermont, who said he "would render sla
;, when the alleged owner presented histite, b
l.. that title must be deed made out by :
n Lord Almighty" but they must have hbunda
/ evidence as TO his being slave, The que
I ton of ownership, escape and identity OF 20


he would leave for the Jury to decide wliho
argument.


On the question Of the authority OilJennin


there could bp a difference of opiniOp, W


the power of attorney legally and properly
= knowledRedl The statute provides that


mower of attorney must be acknowledged q
= certified by any legal officer of the state fr'


whence the slave made his escape, But he


this acknowledgment was made only BY a u
E ordinate of an officer, in regard to whpse leg


ity there may be a serious question. II


statute is to be taken in the broad sense that q


LEGAL officer may take an acknowledgment, u


a watehman IN Che streets, OF pathmaster, Is
to fully justified TO do IL as as Clerk of 20


mon Pleas Court. IT, as Is probableg the st


ute means that the acknowledgment may
taken before any legal officer who isqualii


10 take other similar documents, deeis, ira


fers, 60, then was Robert A. Cochrane, Cl
81. of the Mason County Court, qualified accord
~" 10 law the laws Of Kentucky arp slml


10 those of Ohio, then a Clerk Of Court is


such legal officer. Again, the statute I
yides that the acknowledgment must he eerh
b by the officer before whom 1t is made, "


his olgn SEAL and not that OF tlie Coz
on If he has no seal Of office then he must use
h" private seal and not that OF the Court II


had seal as Clerk Of the Court, separate II
> the proper seal Of the Court, that would be
81 one TO employ The laws Of the State OF X
IN lucky have nothing to do with the Legality
A the acknowledgment before Cochrani save
show whether he was legal oilcer bel


whom such acknowledgment could lawl'


have been taken. Here Robert A, Cochran


employed the seal Of the Court upon tins ms
4. ment,which seal he had no possible right 70


upon such instruments as this aeknowlelgm


III, as in this case, the act be one OF Robert
JE | Cochran alone aud not OF the Court, then
Ists, has illegally used the seal OF the Court. In
and first place them Cochran was not legal


proper officer 10 take such an acknowledge


3econdly, he did not use a legal seal thiT
al / saaa.a Ia UanN