[36] Labadie had been twice married.
[37] For "Panise."
[38] The French Minot is 39.36 litres; the Canadian 36.34 litres or 63.94 pints--the bushel is 64 pints--the Canadian minot is consequently almost exactly one bushel.
[39] _Ess.e.x Historical Society--Papers and Addresses_, Vol. 1, Windsor, Ont. (1913), pp. 13, 39, 48-52.
This is translated thus: I certify that I have sold and delivered to Mr. Labodie a Panis slave called Manon for and in consideration of 80 minots (practically 80 bushels) of wheat which he is to pay me as he has it the coming spring--given under my hand at Detroit this 10th day of October, 1775.
WITNESS: (Signed) (Signed) JOHN PORTEOUS. JAMES STERLING."
[40] The fact was that Jack York had broken into McKee"s dwelling house to commit rape and he had committed rape on the person of Mrs.
Ruth Sufflemine (or Stufflemine).
Powell"s report is dated from Mount Dorchester, September 22, 1800.
_Canadian Archives, Sundries U.C. 1792-1800_; Hunter"s decision in May is in _Canadian Archives Letters Hunter to Heads of Departments_, p.
65; York"s escape is _ibid._, p. 84; the Death Warrant is referred to in _Canadian Archives Sundries U.C. 1792-1800_.
There were certainly slaves in the Western District. The will of Antoine Louis Descomps Labadie made May 26, 1806, contains a bequest "I also give and bequeath to my wife Charlotte, the use or service of two slaves that she may select as long as she continues to be my widow." "A black boy slave to Mrs. Benton, widow of the late Commodore of the Lakes" seems to have been as bad as Jack York. Convicted at Kingston of a house robbery, a capital crime he had the "benefit of clergy" that is, set free as a first offence. But he did not mend his ways. He committed burglary and was convicted at Kingston 1795 before Mr. Justice Powell. The judge sentenced him to be hanged but recommended a pardon. He said the boy was said to be 17 but looked no more than 15 and in view of his education as a slave he hoped that his "would not be the first capital example." _Can. Arch._, B. 210.
[41] In a memorial by the judges of the Court of King"s Bench to the Lieutenant Governor, January 10, 1814, they point out that prices have doubled since the war. The prices before the war and at the time were of bread 1/ and 2/; of beef 6 d and 1/; of wood 7/6 and 15/.
[42] Before 1772, this was not a crime at all but only a civil trespa.s.s; the Waltham Black Act (1722) 9 George I, c. 22 made it a felony punishable with death without benefit of clergy. This continued to be the law in England until the Act (1827) 7, 8 George IV, c. 27 (Imp.), and in Upper Canada until 1841.
[43] Sir Peregrine Maitland.
[44] Banishment existed as a punishment in Upper Canada until 1841, when it was finally abolished and succeeded by imprisonment.
Banishment was a very common alternative for hanging. I have counted as many as four cases at one a.s.size.
[45] The tradition is a floating and rather indefinite one. It has some plausibility but there is nothing which to my mind can be dignified by the name of proof. The facts of the Turner case will be found in a Report by Mr. (afterwards Chief) Justice Powell to Sir Peregrine Maitland"s Secretary Edward McMahon, November 1, 1819, _Canadian Archives, Sundries, U.C._, 1819.
[46] _Canadian Archives_, Q. 324, pp. 432, 436 Letter, June 8, 1818, from "Thos. N. Stewart, Capt. H. P. late Royal Newfoundland Regiment"
to the Right Honourable Earl Bathurst, dated from Barnstable, North Devon.
Turning to a more pleasant subject, while it may not be strictly within the purview of this treatise, it may be permitted to bring to light from the files of the Canadian Archives a story of a poor black woman who showed true humanity. It may be considered by some at the expense of her patriotism. That will not be admitted by everyone, for what share did the Negro have in America in which he lived more than in Britain which offered him freedom?
When in May, 1813, General Dearborn took Fort George in Upper Canada, one of his prisoners was Captain Thomas N. Stewart of the Royal Newfoundland Regiment who was wounded. Taken to the United States, he was with several other British officers kept for months a close prisoner at Philadelphia as a hostage under the retaliation system.
"At length," said he, "I with fourteen other officers made my escape from the prison at Philadelphia by sawing off the iron bars with the springs of watches, but from the active search which was made ten of my companions were retaken in the course of three days. I ...
attribute my success (as well as that of two more British officers) in being enabled to elude the vigilance of the enemy to the kindness and humanity of a poor black woman to whose protection we committed ourselves in our _real character_ and situation: and notwithstanding a reward of one hundred dollars was offered for the apprehension of each officer without our even being able to reward her in an equal degree, she persevered in affording us comfort and accommodation, greatly to her own risk and loss by the total resignation of her small hut and a tender of her services to our use visiting us only at night with provisions, &c. This she continued to do for eight days. When it was thought that the active search was in a great degree abated I ventured by night to leave the abode of this black woman with the intention of going to the Headquarters of the British Army in Canada and this I ultimately succeeded in accomplishing."
His companions leaving one by one at different times also succeeded in returning to the service of their country. Having only $70 and having to travel 600 miles, Capt. Stewart could give the woman only $20: and all she received from all the officers was only $50. He wrote Earl Bathurst, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies asking that she should be remunerated and saying that he would "be most happy to give the address and the source thro" which communication could be made."
Bathurst replied June 13, asking for particulars, and Captain Stewart June 18 wrote again on the eighteenth of June saying that the matter required the utmost circ.u.mspection and excusing himself from giving information until he had communication with America, hoping to point out the precise object whom "His Lordship has thought worthy of remuneration." No doubt the matter then pa.s.sed into the Secret Service, as no further correspondence is preserved in doc.u.ments open to the public.
[46a] The motion was heard in Trinity Term, 34 Victoriae i.e. in February, 1871, see the report in 31 Upper Canada Queens Bench Reports, p. 182: Harris _v._ Cooper. The Court was composed of the Chief Justice William Buell Richards, afterward Sir William Buell Richards, Chief Justice of Canada, Mr. Justice Joseph Curran Morrison, afterwards a Judge of the Court of Error and Appeal, and Mr. Justice Adam Wilson, afterwards successively Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and of the Court of Queen"s Bench.
[47] Two years after her first husband"s death, that is, in 1853, the widow who had then married one Scott sold the lot to Mr. Boomer for $300. Mr. Boomer sold two acres to Edward Osborne and he to Cooper for $800. By 1871 the land had appreciated in value so as to make it worth a lawsuit. Of course, the widow never had any right to sell the land, but it was at least ungracious for her son to repudiate her deed.
[48] The law of Virginia as to marriages of slaves even with the consent of the master was fully and clearly stated by the Court of Appeals of Virginia in the case of Scott _v._ Raub (1872) 88 Virginia, 721. See also the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Hall _v._ United States, 92 U. S. 127; and in Alabama, Matilda _v._ Gardner, 24 Alabama, 719.
[49] 31 Upper Canada Queens Bench Reports at p. 195, 1871.
CHAPTER VI
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE IN UPPER CANADA
Before the Act of 1793, there was some immigration of slaves fleeing from their masters in the United States. After the Act of 1793, however, a slave by entering Upper Canada became free, whether he was brought in by his master or fled from him. Legislation of the United States in the same year[1] increased the number of those fleeing to the province under this law. Slaves who had effected their escape to what were considered free States were liable to be reclaimed by their masters. Shocking instances of the forcing into renewed slavery of the escaped slave and even of enslaving the free persons of color are on record and there are told worse which never saw the open light of day.
Eli Whitney"s invention of the cotton gin about the same time[2] made slaves much more valuable and not only checked the movement toward gradual emanc.i.p.ation but increased the ardor with which the fugitive was pursued. From 1793 the influx of fugitive slaves into the province never quite ceased. The War of 1812 saw former slaves in the Canadian militia fighting against their former masters and Canada as an asylum of freedom became known in the South by mysterious but effective means. "As early as 1815 negroes were reported crossing the Western Reserve to Canada in great numbers and one group of Underground Railway workers in Southern Ohio is stated to have pa.s.sed on more than 1000 fugitives before 1817."[3]
It is not proposed here to give an account of the celebrated Underground Railway. It is sufficient to say that it was the cause of hundreds of slaves reaching the province.[4] Some slaves escaped by their own efforts in what can fairly be called a miraculous way. No more dramatic or thrilling tales were ever told than could be told by some of these refugees. Some having been brought by their masters near to the Canadian boundary then clandestinely or by force effected a pa.s.sage. Some came from far to the South, guided by the North Star.
Many were a.s.sisted by friends more or less secretly. These refugees joined settlements with other people of color freeborn or freed in the western part of the Peninsula, in the counties of Ess.e.x and Kent and elsewhere.[5] Some of them settled in other parts of the province, either together or more usually sporadically. Toronto received many.
These were superior to most of their race, for none but those with more than ordinary qualities could reach Canada.[6]
The masters of runaway slaves did not always remain quiet when their slaves reached this province. Sometimes they followed them in an attempt to take them back. There are said to have been a few instances of actual kidnapping. There were some of attempted kidnapping.
Most of these are merely traditional but at least one is well authenticated.[7]
In May, 1830, a young man with finely chiselled features, bright hazel eyes, apparently a quadroon or octoroon applied for service at the house of Charles Baby, "the old Baby mansion in the ... historical town of Sandwich" in Upper Canada on the Detroit River. He said he had escaped from slavery in Kentucky, had arrived on the previous evening at Detroit and had crossed the river to Canada as quickly as possible.
He had been a mason but understood gardening and attending to horses and had other accomplishments. He was engaged and proved a satisfactory servant "respectful, cleanly, capable, lithe and active as a panther." His former master came from Kentucky and reclaimed him after the lapse of six months. The recognition was mutual and immediate. The Kentuckian, offered $2000 to Baby for the return of Andrew his former slave, but the offer was indignantly refused. It turned out that Andrew had taken his master"s favorite horse to a.s.sist him in his flight but had turned it loose after riding it some twenty-five miles. Whether for this reason or for some other, the Kentuckian did not appeal for the extradition of Andrew[8] but determined to use violence.
A short time afterwards five desperadoes from Detroit attempted to kidnap Andrew while the family were at Church, but they were successfully resisted by Andrew and Charles Baby until the service was over and the people were seen hastening home. The would-be kidnappers made their escape across the river. Finding it dangerous to keep Andrew so near the border, the neighbors took up a subscription and he was sent by stage to York (Toronto). This place he reached in safety.
"He made good" and lived a respectable and useful life undisturbed by any fear of Kentucky vengeance.[9]
The law as to such attempts was authoritatively stated in 1819 by John Beverley Robinson, Attorney General of Upper Canada, afterwards Sir John Beverley Robinson, Bart, Chief Justice of Upper Canada. The opinion will be given in his own words:[10]
"In obedience to Your Excellency"s comments I have perused the accompanying letter from G. C. Antrobus Esquire, His Majesty"s charge d"affaires at the Court of Washington and have attentively considered the question referred to me by Your Excellency thereupon--namely--"Whether the owners of several Negro Slaves who have fled from the United States of America and are now resident in this Province can be permitted to come hither and obtain possession of their property, and whether rest.i.tution of such Negroes can be made by the interposition of the government of this Province" and I beg to express most respectfully my opinion to your Excellency that the Legislature of this Province having adopted the Law of England as the rule of decision in all questions relative to property and civil rights, and freedom of the person being the most important civil right protected by those laws, it follows that whatever may have been the condition of these Negroes in the Country to which they formerly belonged, here they are free--For the enjoyment of all civil rights consequent to a mere residence in the country and among them the right to personal freedom as acknowledged and protected by the Laws of England in cases similar to that under consideration, must notwithstanding any legislative enactment that may be thought to affect it, with which I am acquainted, be extended to these Negroes as well as to all others under His Majesty"s Government in this Province. The consequence is that should any attempt be made by any person to infringe upon this right in the persons of these Negroes, they would most probably call for, and could compel the interference of those to whom the administration of our Laws is committed and I submit with the greatest deference to Your Excellency that it would not be in the power of the Executive Government in any manner to restrain or direct the Courts or Judges in the exercise of their duty upon such an application."[11]
Then came a number of applications for the return of runaway slaves cloaked under criminal charges, the pretence being made that they had committed some crime and that it was desired to bring them to trial and punishment. There can be no doubt that in the absence of some const.i.tutional provision every country has the right to keep out criminals and, if they have entered the country, to hand them over to the authorities of the country whence they came; but the rules of international law have never gone so far as to make it obligatory on any country to send away immigrant criminals even if demanded by their former country. It has always been the theory in Upper Canada that the Governor had the power independently of statute or treaty to deliver up alien refugees charged with crimes.[12] This was not wholly satisfactory and the legislature took the matter up and pa.s.sed an act governing such cases, February 13th, 1833,[13] providing for the apprehension of fugitive offenders from foreign countries, and delivering them up to justice. This provides that on the requisition of the executive of any foreign country the governor of the province on the advice of his executive council may deliver up any person in the province charged with "Murder, Forgery, Larceny or other crime which if committed within the province would have been punishable with death, corporal punishment, the pillory, whipping or confinement at hard labour." The person charged might be arrested and detained for inquiry, but the act was permissive only and the delivery up was at the discretion of the Governor-in-Council.
It was under this act that the extradition of Thornton Blackburn was sought but finally refused. The case was this: Two persons of color named Blackburn, a man and his wife, were claimed as slaves on behalf of some person in the State of Kentucky. They were arrested in Detroit in 1833 and examined before a magistrate, who, in accordance with the law of the United States, made his certificate and directed them to be delivered over as the personal property of the claimant in Kentucky.
The sheriff took them into custody but when one of them was on the point of being removed from the prison to be restored to his owner, he was violently rescued and directed across the river into Canada. On the day before the rescue of Thornton Blackburn his wife eluded the jailer in disguise and escaped to Canada.
The Upper Canadian Government was, therefore, called upon to return these prisoners to the United States. Upon examining the record in the case, however, the Attorney General of Upper Canada in reply to the Governor for information in the case, advised that the so-called offences of Thornton Blackburn in trying to effect his own escape from persons seeking to return him to slavery could not be construed as rioting or rescuing a prisoner from an officer of the law as had been set forth in the requisition papers from the Michigan authorities and certainly could not be applied to Thornton Blackburn"s wife who, as the evidence showed, had taken no part at all in the rescue.
The council[14] was thereafter called upon to consider the question whether, if a similar charge had been committed in Canada, the offenders would be liable to undergo any of the punishments provided for in the act pa.s.sed at the session of the Canadian Legislature in 1833. The Attorney General[15] was of the opinion that had the government been confined to the official requisition that had accompanied it, he might have been warranted in delivering up these persons inasmuch as there was evidence on which, according to the terms of the Canadian law, a magistrate would have been warranted in apprehending and committing for trial persons charged with riot, forcible rescue and a.s.sault and battery. The Attorney General believed, however, that the Governor and the Council were not confined to such evidence since, though limited in their authority to enforcing the provisions of the act against fugitives from foreign States, on being satisfied that the evidence would warrant the commitment for trial, yet in coming to that conclusion, they were bound to hear not ex parte evidence alone but matter explanatory to guide their judgment; for even with the authority so to do, they were not required to deliver up any prisoner so charged, if for any reason they deemed it inexpedient so to do.
The conclusion of the Attorney General, therefore, was that Blackburn and his wife were not charged with any of the offences enumerated in the statute of Canada and that the Governor and Council were not authorized by its provisions to send them out of the province. He said, moreover: "It has not escaped our attention as a peculiar feature in this case that two of the persons whom the Government of this Province is requested to deliver up are persons recognized by the Government of Michigan as slaves and that it appears upon these doc.u.ments that if they should be delivered up they would by the laws of the United States be exposed to be forced into a state of slavery from which they had escaped two years ago when they fled from Kentucky to Detroit; that if they should be sent to Michigan and upon trial be convicted of the riot and punished they would after undergoing their punishment be subject to be taken by their masters and continued in a state of slavery for life, and that, on the other hand, if they should never be prosecuted, or if they should be tried and acquitted, this consequence would equally follow.
The next case was not so happy in its result. It caused much excitement at the time and is not yet forgotten. Solomon Mosely or Moseby, a Negro slave, came to the province across the Niagara River from Buffalo which he had reached after many days travel from Louisville, Kentucky. His master followed him and charged him with the larceny of a horse which the slave took to a.s.sist him in his flight. That he had taken the horse there was no doubt and as little that after days of hard riding he had sold it. The Negro was arrested and placed in the Niagara Gaol. A prima facie case was made out and an order sent for his extradition.[16]
The people of color of the Niagara region made the Mosely case their own and determined to prevent his delivery up to the American authorities to be taken to the land of the free and the home of the brave, knowing that there for him to be brave meant torture and death, and that death alone could set him free. Under the leadership of Herbert Holmes, a yellow man[17] a teacher and preacher, they lay around the jail night and day to the number of from two to four hundred to prevent the prisoner"s delivery up. At length the deputy sheriff with a military guard brought out the unfortunate man shackled to a wagon from the jail yard, to go to the ferry across the Niagara River. Holmes and a man of color named Green grabbed the lines. Deputy Sheriff McLeod gave the order to fire and charge. One soldier shot Holmes dead and another bayoneted Green, so that he died almost at once. Mosely, who was very athletic leaped from the wagon and made his escape. He went to Montreal and afterward to England, finally returning to Niagara, where he was joined by his wife, who also escaped from slavery.
An inquest was held on the bodies of Holmes and Green. The jury found "justifiable homicide" in the case of Holmes. "Whether justifiable or unjustifiable" there was not sufficient evidence before the jury to decide in the case of Green. The verdict in the case of Holmes was the only possible verdict on the admitted facts. Holmes was forcibly resisting an officer of the law in executing a legal order of the proper authority. In the case of Green the doubt arose from the uncertainty whether he was bayoneted while resisting the officer or after Mosely had made his escape. The evidence was conflicting and the fact has never been made quite clear. No proceedings were taken against the deputy sheriff; but a score or more of the people of color were arrested and placed in prison for a time. The troublous times of the Mackenzie Rebellion came on and the men of color were released, many of them joining a Negro militia company which took part in protecting the border.