"U. S. COMMISSIONER"S OFFICE--Before Commissioner Gardiner.--_Examination as to James Hamlet, charged to be a fugitive slave, the property of Mary Brown, of Baltimore._--No person was present as counsel for accused, and only one colored man. He is a light mulatto.
The marshal said Mr. Wood had been there. The commissioner said they would go on, and if counsel came in, he would read proceedings.
"_Thomas J. Clare_ (a man with dark eyes and hair), sworn.--Am thirty years of age; clerk for Merchant"s Shot Manufacturing Company in Baltimore; know James Hamlet; he is slave of Mary Brown, a mother-in-law of mine, residing in Baltimore; have known Hamlet about twenty years; he left my mother-in-law about two years ago this season, by absenting himself from the premises, the dwelling where he resided in Baltimore; she is ent.i.tled to his services; he is a slave for life; she never parted with him voluntarily; she came into possession of him by will from John G. Brown, her deceased husband; the written paper shown is an extract from his will; she held him under that from the time she inherited him till he escaped, as I have testified; this is the man (pointing to Hamlet, a light mulatto man, about twenty-four or twenty-five years of age, looking exceedingly pensive).
"_Gustavus Brown_, sworn.--Am twenty-five years of age; reside in New York; clerk with A. M. Fenday, 25 Front street; resided before coming here in Baltimore; I know James Hamlet; I have known him since a boy; he is a slave to my mother; he is a slave for life; my mother inherited him under the will of my father; he left her service by running away, I suppose; absenting himself from the house in the city of Baltimore, about two years since; I have seen him several times, within the last six months, in the city; first time I saw him was in April last; my mother is still ent.i.tled to possession of him; she never has parted with him; the man sitting here (Hamlet) is the man.
"Mr. Asa Child, Counsellor at Law, here came into the room, and took his seat; he said he had been sent to this morning, through another, by a gentleman with whom Hamlet had lived in this city (Mr. S. N. Wood), but he had no directions in the matter; he merely came to see that the law is properly administered, and supposed it would be without him.
"Mr. Child was then shown the law, the power of attorney to Mr. Clare, the affidavit of Mr. Clare on which Hamlet was arrested--and the testimony thus far.
"_Mr. Clare_, cross-examined by Mr. Child.--I married Mrs. Brown"s daughter about seventeen years ago; Hamlet has always lived with us in the family: I am in her family now, and was at the time he went away; think he is about twenty-eight years of age (he looks much younger than that--his features are very even, as those of a white person of the kind); he occasionally worked at the shot tower where I worked; he was hired there as a laborer, and Mrs. Brown got the benefit of him--that is, when I had no other use for him; he had formerly been employed as a drayman; after I married into the family some year or two, we lived together, I furnishing the house; such wages as I got for the man it was returned to Mrs. Brown, to be used as she saw fit; I was her agent to get employment for him as I could; I had him in various occupations; I have a power of attorney; I have no further interest in him than he is her property, and we wish to get him back to Maryland again, where he left.
"_Mr. Brown_, cross-examined.--Left home 27th March last. Was home when Hamlet went away. At the time he was engaged at the shot tower business.
"Mr. Child said he had no further questions to ask. He supposed the rules of the law had been complied with.
"Mr. Gardiner, the commissioner, then said, I will deliver the fugitive over to the marshal, to be delivered over to the claimant.
"Mr. Child suggested if that was the law. The commissioner then said he would hand him, as the law said, to the claimant, and if there should be any danger of rescue, he would deliver him to the United States Marshal.
"The United States Marshal said he had performed his duty in bringing him in.
"Mr. Clare said he would demand such aid from the United States Marshal, as would secure the delivery of the man to his owner in Baltimore.
"Mr. Child suggested that it must be an affidavit that he apprehends a rescue. Mr. Clare said that he did so apprehend.
"Mr. Talmadge, the marshal, said he would have to perform his duty, if called upon.
"Mr. Child replied he supposed he would, but there were doubts as to the form.
"The necessary papers were made out by the commissioner, Mr. Clare swearing he feared a rescue, and Hamlet was delivered to him, thence to the United States Marshal, and probably was conveyed with all possible despatch to Baltimore, a coach being in waiting at the door; and he was taken off in irons, an officer accompanying the party."
Here is the charge of Judge McLean in a similar case.
"No earthly power has a right to interpose between a man"s conscience and his Maker. He has a right, an inalienable and absolute right, to worship G.o.d according to the dictates of his own conscience. For this he alone must answer, and he is entirely free from all human restraint to think and act for himself.
"But this is not the case when his acts affect the rights of others.
Society has a claim upon all its citizens. General rules have been adopted in the form of laws, for the protection of the rights of persons and things. These laws lie at the foundation of the social compact, and their observance is essential to the maintenance of civilization. In these matters the law, and not conscience, const.i.tutes the rule of action You are sworn to decide this case according to the law and testimony; and you become unfaithful to the solemn injunctions you have taken upon yourselves, when you yield to an influence which you call conscience, that places you above the law and the testimony.
"Such a rule can only apply to individuals; and when a.s.sumed as a basis of action on the rights of others, it is utterly destructive of all law.
What may be deemed a conscientious act by one individual, may be held criminal by another. In view of one, the act is meritorious; in the view of the other, it should be punished as a crime. And each has the same right, acting under the dictates of his conscience, to carry out his own view. This would overturn the basis of society. We must stand by the law. We have sworn to maintain it. It is expected that the citizens of the free States should be opposed to slavery. But with the abstract principles of slavery we have nothing to do. As a political question there could be no difference of opinion among us on the subject. But our duty is found in the Const.i.tution of the Union, as construed by the Supreme Court. The fugitives from labor we are bound, by the highest obligations, to deliver up on claim of the master being made; and there is no State power which can release the slave from the legal custody of his master.
"In regard to the arrest of fugitives from labor, the law does not impose active duties on our citizens generally. They are not prohibited from exercising the ordinary charities of life towards the fugitive. To secrete him or convey him from the reach of his master, or to rescue him when in legal custody, is forbidden; and for doing this a liability is incurred. This gives to no one a just ground of complaint. He has only to refrain from an express violation of the law, which operates to the injury of his neighbor."
He seems to think the right to hold slaves as much a natural right as the absolute right to worship G.o.d according to the "dictates of conscience." One man has an unalienable right to liberty, other men an unalienable right to alienate and take it from him!
Here is something in a different spirit from a Boston newspaper.
"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.
"This infamous bill has finally pa.s.sed both branches of Congress.[A] My opinion on this subject may have little weight with those who voted for it, but may help sustain the sinking spirit of some poor disconsolate one, who, having fled from the land of oppressors, is anxiously looking to see if there is any one who will give him a cheering look, or a kind reception, or who dares to give him a crust of bread, or a cup of water, and help him on his way.
"Allow me to say to such an one, that if pursued by the merciless slaveholder, and every other door in Boston is shut against him, there is a door that will be open at No. 2 Beach street, and that the fear of fines and imprisonment will be ineffectual when the pursuer shall demand his victim. If he enters before the fleeing captive is safe, it will be at his peril. I am opposed to war, and all the spirit of war; even to all preparations for what is called self-defence in times of peace; yet I should resist the pursuer, and not allow him to enter my dwelling until he was able to tread me under his feet. I will not trample upon any law, either of my own State, or of the nation, that does not conflict with my conscientious duty to my G.o.d; but Jesus has commanded, saying, "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
"If, for no crime, I had been taken and sold, and deprived of all the rights of my manhood, and degraded to the rank of a beast of burden; not only deprived of the opportunity to labor for the support of my wife and children, but even deprived of their kind sympathy and companionship, whenever the interest or will of my oppressors should require it; and I should, at the peril of my life, flee from my oppressors, and they should pursue me to the dwelling of some poor disciple of Jesus, it may be that of a colored man, and I should beg of him to protect me, and help me to escape from the pursuer"s grasp, should I not hope, if he was a Christian, he would give me bread and water, and help me on my way, regardless of the fines and imprisonment that such a kind act might render him liable to? Could I expect to meet the approbation of my Lord, if I did not do as much for the fleeing slave? Can there be a Christian, in this land of the Pilgrims, who will not do it, and besides, do all in his power to prevent any one of those Senators or Representatives in Congress who voted for that infamous bill from ever again misrepresenting any portion of the friends of freedom, in Boston or elsewhere? It is said, this is a law of the land, and must be obeyed: to such I would say, "Whether it be right in the sight of G.o.d to hearken unto men more than unto G.o.d, judge ye,"
"I prefer to obey G.o.d, if in so doing I must break the laws of men and be punished, rather than violate the laws of G.o.d and obey the laws of men, to escape fines and imprisonments, or even death.
"Boston, Sept. 23, 1850.
T. GILBERT."
Here is yet more:
"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE BILL.
"MESSRS. EDITORS:--The bold and manly avowal of your correspondent, Mr. T. Gilbert, in last evening"s Traveller, in commenting upon what he very justly denominates the "infamous fugitive slave bill," is but the very echoing of thousands of hearts equally true to the cause of freedom, and who seek the elevation of the down-trodden sons and daughters of American slavery. That gentleman, acting upon the dictates of an enlightened patriotism, and in deep sympathy with the fleeing captive, has the courage to avow his determination to throw wide open his door, and offers to make his house--even though he should stand alone among his fellow-citizens--an asylum to the fugitive slave, in his retreat from the prison-house of bondage. The paramount claims which he awards to the Divine law over that which is but human, and therefore necessarily imperfect, commend his spirited letter to the consideration of all those that have in any way aided in the pa.s.sage of a bill at variance with the first principles of civil freedom, and in direct hostility to the instruction of that great Teacher who hath commanded us to "Do unto others as we would that they should do unto us." That the determination of your correspondent may be true and unfaltering, is the hearty prayer of one, at least, of his fellow-citizens, who is ready at all times to cooperate in making an asylum for the fugitive slave, even though bonds and imprisonments should prove the penalty.
GEORGE W. CARNES.
"Boston, Sept. 26, 1850."
Here follow some characteristic remarks on the terror which the fugitives here in Boston feel in apprehension of being torn from their families and their freedom.
"THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.
"The colored people had a grand time last evening, at Zion"s Chapel in Church street. Their object was to denounce the fugitive slave law; and this was done with hearty good-will, or, we should say, malediction.
"The steam would have been well up, without any extraneous elements of excitement; but what added a special interest to the occasion, and raised the temperament to blood-heat, was the announcement, made by Mr.
Downing, that the wife of James Hamlet (the fugitive slave who was returned to his owner in Baltimore, a few days since, under a process of law), had died yesterday, of grief and convulsions.
"This filled the measure of indignation which burned in the bosoms of all present, against a law which, besides its other abominations, could produce such fatal effects. In the fever of the moment, a contribution was called for, to defray the expense of her funeral, and about twenty dollars was collected.
"Shortly after, information was received that it was all a mistake about her dying of convulsions, or in any other way; and that she was as well as ever. This was a damper upon the enthusiasm of the occasion, but the money was already collected, and seeing it could not be applied just now to defray her funeral expenses, it was very properly decided to apply it to her living expenses. The meeting adjourned.
"Mrs. Hamlet was in our office yesterday, accompanied by her mother and a colored man. She appeared to be in good health (though of course distressed at the misfortune of her husband), and we hope she will live a thousand years. She certainly shall, if his return will have that effect."--_N. Y. Journal of Commerce._
I print these pa.s.sages, hoping that some hundred years hence they may be found in some old library, and valued as monuments of the state of Christianity in the free States in the year 1850.
[A] I call this bill _infamous_, because by it the man or woman who is charged with being a slave is deprived of all the means of self-defence allowed to those who are charged with crimes, and to be delivered up summarily, without the right of trial by jury, or any other proper means of proving the charge groundless. Is it a worse crime to be a slave than a thief or a murderer?
[14] THE FUNCTION OF THE JURY.
There are two theories of the function of the jury in criminal trials.
One I will call the theory of the Government; the other the theory of the People. The first has of late been insisted on in certain courts, and laid down by some judges in their charges to the jury. The second lies, perhaps dimly, in the consciousness of the people, and may be gathered from the conduct of juries in trials where the judges" law would do obvious injustice to the prisoner.