Mr. Davis was on or near the platform when Mr. Homer saw him. Mr. Adams met him on the lower floor, by the Marshal"s office, while the noise was going on up stairs; talked with him two or three minutes, and walked round the building, and saw the crowd go up the street. This proves that Mr. Davis did not linger near the rescuers; nor did he absolutely run away, or fly, as a man would who desired to avoid discovery. On the contrary, he did just as any other person would have done. He staid long enough to let himself be seen by several persons, but not long enough to be of any aid to the rescuers. Nothing can be clearer of cause for imputation, than the conduct of Mr. Davis in the entry and on the stairway.
Such, please your Honor, is all the evidence against the defendant. It is reduced to an exclamation on the stair-case, sworn to, not very confidently, by a deaf man, who was too far off to hear well at any rate of hearing, denied by three officers, with good hearing, two of whom were outside, while a dozen voices were calling out the same thing at the same moment; the moment, too, one of alarm and excitement on the part of the officers. If such evidence is sufficient, who can be safe?
Who would dare to act as counsel in any case of public excitement, with a suspicious and angry government watching every motion, served by officers of broken down reputations?
Please your Honor, I have done with the testimony. On what principles of proof is the judgment to be made up?
The Const.i.tution requires that no person shall be arrested without a warrant supported by oath. The Act of 1789 requires these proceedings to be conformed to proceedings in the State Courts. In Ma.s.sachusetts it has always been required that the complainant shall be first examined on his oath. In this case there has been no examination under oath. Mr. George Lunt, has sworn, "so help me G.o.d," that Charles Gideon Davis, a Counsellor of this Court, has aided in rescuing the prisoner. Yet, so help him G.o.d! he knew nothing about the facts. He has made oath to the form of the Statute, and no more.
_Mr. Lunt_ here intervened and said it was the custom for the District Attorney to swear to complaints on hearsay evidence.
_Mr. Dana_--But this is not stated as hearsay. It is sworn to as a fact.
Charles G. Davis "_did_ rescue," and the above named George Lunt made oath to the _truth of the facts_. As a question of conscience, I leave it with that officer to settle with himself. As a matter of law, as a matter of vital importance to every citizen, as a great question of const.i.tutional law, I earnestly protest against the issuing of warrants on the mere formal oaths of official persons, representing a party in the proceedings, and utterly ignorant of the facts they swear to. If it be a custom, it is more honored in the breach than in the observance.
But I deny that it is the custom. Complaints are sworn to by persons knowing the facts always in the State Courts, and in my experience in the Federal Courts. If the prosecuting officer is obliged to swear to them, for want of other witnesses, he only swears to his information and belief.
In closing my prolonged remarks, let me recapitulate our case. Mr. Davis is not the man to urge others to acts he dares not commit himself. He believes this dreadful statute unconst.i.tutional, a violation of our moral sense, a great breach upon the safeguards of freedom every where.
Yet he will oppose it legally, by speech, by the pen, and in Court. He will not yield to it any voluntary obedience, but he will not use force, or counsel citizens to use force to set aside the laws. He rejoices that Shadrach is free. Every right minded man rejoices that he is free. Sober second thought teaches him and all of us that violent counsels are weak counsels. Better had it been for the cause of freedom, if, when the Marshal called out to shoot the prisoner, some armed minister of the law had shot dead the unarmed, unoffending man! Better had it been for him, and the cause of those like him, if John H. Riley, instead of flying to the window, had plunged that sword to the hilt in the heart of the captive! Better if this temple of justice, which has already been turned into a slave jail, and a slave market, had also been made the shambles and the grave!
While we uphold the public peace and the dignity of all laws, let us regard with tenderness and consideration that poor cla.s.s of oppressed men, our negro population, on whom the statute falls with the terrors and blackness of night. When one of their number, by his industry and abilities has raised himself to the dignity of a place in this bar, it was with mortification I heard him insulted, yesterday, on the stand, by an officer of court, who pointed him out, in giving his evidence, as "the little darkey lawyer." While I rejoiced at the rebuke administered to that officer from the bench, it was with deep regret that I saw the representative of the government lead off the laugh of the audience against him.
_Mr. Lunt_--This is false.
_Mr. Dana_--Do you deny you did so? It was seen and noticed by us all. I spoke to you at the time.
_Mr. Lunt_--I only smiled. I cannot always control my muscles.
_Mr. Dana_--I am sorry you could not control them on this occasion. It led off and encouraged others, who take their cue from persons in high stations.
The doings of these last few days are now part of history. If there has been a hasty and a needless arrest of a respectable gentleman; if counsel have been intimidated, or witnesses threatened; if liberty of speech and action have been periled; if the dignity and duty of office have been yielded to the unreasonable demands of political agents, and the commands of a misinformed Executive,--the Inquest of public opinion is to sit upon the whole transaction, and it will be held up to the world. _Proximus ardet Ucalegon!_ There are revolutions in the wheel of fortune. There are tides in the affairs of men.
Let us hope that your Honor will be able to set this occurrence in its true light:--A sudden, unexpected, unpremeditated action of a group of excited men, and successful because unexpected. But a sworn counsellor of this Court, even in the excitement of the rescue of a slave to his freedom, by those of his own flesh and bone, did not forget the duty he owed personally to the Court and the law.
ARGUMENT OF GEORGE LUNT, ESQ., DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
Mr. Lunt said that the counsel for the defence had commenced by saying, that he did not know how he was to be answered. He should not reply to the first two hours of the gentleman"s speech. The gentleman has alluded to const.i.tutional doctrines, and opinions, which a small cla.s.s of the community entertain. I shall not spend my time for popular effect. Some of his remarks come with an ill grace from him, and those with whom he a.s.sociates. The gentleman should take care how he is a.s.sociated. I have nothing to say against the colored people--ignorant--degraded, no doubt, but peaceable, as a general thing; they would be glad to get away from people who meddle with them, and would prefer to be let alone. But I say it is dangerous and mischievous to recommend such doctrines as the gentleman avows. _Proximus ardet Ucalegon!_ The relation of counsel in which he appears here may be changed. The sentiments he has uttered here place _him_ in peril. He will find it _so_, _to his cost_, unless he changes the tone of his remarks, on this and future occasions.
I will proceed at once to the evidence. The question here is, has a law of the United States been violated? I throw to the winds every question except whether this defendant is guilty; high or low, it matters not; the higher in station, the more amenable. I do not suppose for a moment that the Commissioner has any prejudice. We cannot, and we never will regard, the office, which the counsel seems to consider sacred. The sacredness of an office depends upon the sacredness of character. I am accused of having arrested an individual with unseemly haste, a person of character, of a family whose name is known in history; a member of the bar, bound to preserve the law, counsel at the time, and ent.i.tled to perfect freedom. I can state with confidence that the defendant was not arrested until after a full personal investigation of facts, and then on a keen sense of duty. Now what were the grounds in general, on which the warrant was issued? Mr. Davis meets Mr. Riley in the morning, upon which, after an inquiry whether he has seen Mr. Curtis, he asked if he has a slave case? a question he might well ask, considering the company with which he is a.s.sociated. He asks him again in this Court room.
_Mr. Dana_--There is no evidence of that,--the evidence is, that after the adjournment he asked an explanation from Mr. Riley of the interview in the morning.
_The Commissioner_ referring to his notes--says, he believes Mr. Dana is right.
_Mr. Lunt._ Now with whom is he a.s.sociated? I hold in my hand an account of a meeting held in Faneuil Hall, on the 14th of October last.
_Mr Dana._--For what purpose this narrative to be read here? It is an account from a hostile paper, of a political meeting, not made under oath; and it does not appear who wrote it, nor whether the person who wrote it was present at the meeting.
_The Commissioner._--I shall not object to the gentleman"s reading whatever he thinks proper. You have introduced in your argument a great many irrelevant matters, Mr. Dana, and Mr. Lunt may do the same.
_Mr. Lunt._--This is the account,--Reads from the Boston Post of October 15, 1850.
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW MEETING.
"The call for a meeting of the opponents of the fugitive slave law, at Faneuil Hall, last night, collected a large audience, comprising a considerable number of colored people. There were about three hundred colored females in the galleries. The meeting was called to order by Francis Jackson, and organized as follows:--Charles Francis Adams, President; Samuel E. Sewall, Gershom B. Weston, Francis Jackson, and Timothy Gilbert, Vice Presidents; J. W. Stone, and J. W. Thornton, Secretaries.
"Upon taking the chair, Mr. Adams delivered a carefully prepared address, in which he maintained that the law was repugnant to the spirit of our inst.i.tutions and the const.i.tution, and fraught with as much danger to free colored people as to fugitives.
"He was followed by Frederick Dougla.s.s, who described the consternation the law had created among the colored people, free and fugitive, and said that he knew of hundreds of both cla.s.ses who were fleeing to Canada. The free colored people were in fear of seizure by conspiring complainants, aided by perjured affidavits.
"Richard H. Dana, Jr., after expressing regret that the meeting was not made up of somewhat different material, of the leading men in all branches of business, and of men of property and reputed respectability, read a long letter from Josiah Quincy, senior, declaring against the law, but at the same time expressing his belief that there was no real ground for alarm, for, in his opinion, the enforcement of the law in Ma.s.sachusetts would prove to be impracticable.
"At the request of the President, Mr. Dana also read a series of resolutions, author unknown, declaring that the moral sense of the individuals composing the meeting, revolted against the law; denouncing it as contradictory to the declaration of independence, and inconsistent with the purposes of the const.i.tution, and in direct violation of its habeas corpus provision, and the right of the people to be secure from unreasonable seizure, &c.; that the meeting could not believe that any citizen of Boston and its vicinity could be so dest.i.tute of love of his country and of his race, or devoid of a sense of justice, as to take part in returning a fugitive; and that all present pledge themselves to endeavor to aid and cooperate with all colored people endangered by the law.
"Speeches were made by Wendell Phillips, James W. Briggs, of Ohio, Charles Remond, and the Rev. Mr. Colver. The resolutions were adopted, as a matter of course. The last one provided "for a committee of vigilance to secure the fugitives and colored inhabitants of Boston and vicinity from any invasion of their rights by persons acting under the law," and the committee was styled and made up as follows:--"
The last resolution provides for a committee, of which Charles G. Davis was one. Now I admit that Mr. Davis was in Syracuse, at the time. But he admits that he volunteered upon his return. Why didn"t he publicly disclaim any a.s.sent to these proceedings? And if he did not, is he not to be presumed to have a.s.sented? I want the public to know whether Mr.
Davis and those a.s.sociated with him, abide by the doctrines avowed in Faneuil Hall.
The Statute provides that whoever has been engaged in aiding, abetting, or a.s.sisting, _directly or indirectly_, is criminal. I shall contend that the defendant is directly implicated. He is more or less implicated, in the opinions which have been promulgated, and from his conversations with Mr. Riley. What next? He comes and asks whether a certain man is a Southern man. Why? Is not a Southern man to go into a United States Court? Has it come to this?
Mr. Davis then says to Sawin, "this is a d--d nasty piece of business,"
in the presence of the prisoner. He knew that such an expression was calculated to have two effects; first, to discourage the officer,--and secondly, to encourage and excite the prisoner. This was an indirect aiding,--connecting it with the subsequent escape. He uses language of a very unusual and violent character afterwards.
For some unaccountable reason Mr. Davis remains here; for it is unaccounted for. Was he counsel?
I maintain he was not counsel. Mr. Riley did not know he was counsel when he asked Shadrach in Wright"s presence if Davis was counsel. Riley didn"t know it then. Shadrach appeared to be in doubt about it.
(It was suggested that there was no such evidence.)
What was he waiting for? What single thing did he do as counsel?
Mr. Lunt here reviewed the evidence of the transactions in the court room more minutely. Davis pushed the door and stuck his back against the post. One expression, "Take him out, boys," is the natural expression of a stranger. The other words testified to by others were, "take him out."
He goes down, and does not interfere, according to his own statement. He shows no disposition to prevent a rescue.
The Commissioner inquires whether not interfering may not be indirectly aiding and abetting.
_Mr. Lunt._ I am not ready to take that ground at present.
_The Commissioner._ He is undoubtedly liable, as a magistrate, and subject to a fine of $300.
Mr. Lunt reviews the evidence of what took place in the entry, argues that Mr. Homer could not have seen the whole disturbance, says that as a professional man, he can"t say it is proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. Davis uttered the words "take him out, boys," and does not think they would satisfy a jury, taken by themselves. But there was reasonable cause for binding him over. Mr. Prescott shakes my confidence in my preconceived opinions upon the subject, as to whether Davis went out or not. I did not think before that Davis went out. Mr. Prescott cannot be mistaken. Mr. Prescott"s testimony is not met by the negative testimony of Mr. Riley, for it was impossible that Mr. Riley could have constantly watched the left hand or easterly door, while talking with others or disputing with Mr. Wright. If he did go out then, he had an opportunity to concert a signal with the colored men without.
Mr. Lunt argued to show the intenseness of Mr. Davis"s interest and zeal in opposition to the law, that it was avowed by him under oath upon the stand; that showed his predisposition and excited state of mind upon the subject, and the greater liability of his being betrayed into an act of overt resistance to the law, if an opportunity occurred. This excited state of mind continued in the court room, as was proved by his addressing the officers in the abusive and sanguinary terms used by him.
Up to the moment of leaving the court room, and when expostulated with by the officer, for saying he and others ought to have their throats cut, he admitted that he had said so, and that he said so again. Clark and Hutchins heard the cry--"Take him out boys;" and Byrnes, whose eye was fixed on Mr. Davis, was certain that they came from him.
The words were uttered. He was in that peculiar state of mind, which rendered such words the natural expression of his feelings, and they were in perfect accordance with the general purpose of resistance to the law publicly promulgated by his a.s.sociates and co-laborers, who had been formed into an organized body in this city. He did not content himself with going out when Hutchins opened the door for him. He braced his back against the door-post, and pushed against the door to open it wider.
Then came the cry--"Take him out, boys!" And Byrnes had sworn it came from Mr. Davis. Connected with Mr. Davis"s leaving the room was another significant fact. Almost at the moment that he, quitting that part of the room where the fugitive was, started to go out, the fugitive rose, put on his coat, and appearing to be excited, walked forward, just as the first cry was raised.