Chapter III: Part 3

On the investigation of the law relating to the matter, it was found that the keeper of the debtor’s apartment was not amenable to the United States District Court. The inquiry was accordingly dropped, informally.

On the same morning, at the instance of the District Attorney, it was ordered that the bills against the prisoners be certified to the U. S. Circuit Court, and he announced that Castner Hanway would be tried on the following Monday. John Jackson, it was also said, would be tried immediately after Hanway.

During the week, the preparations made on both sides were conducted in private; but one or two matters that excited some attention were permitted to make their way into the public prints. The entire private history of the difficulty which required the umpirage of the authorities at Washington, would be peculiarly _piquant_. But we have undertaken only an epitome of such matters as were made public, and would be digressing from the course marked out, were we to go “behind the scenes.”

It appears that as soon as the preliminary examinations were concluded, and it was determined to try the offenders upon the charge of treason against the United States, intimation was received from Washington by the authorities in Philadelphia, that the Administration desired no pains should be spared in conducting the trials with energy, and in a style worthy the occasion. The learned District Attorney for the United States obeyed these instructions to the very letter. Counsel were retained to assist him. The country was searched to procure the necessary evidence. Arguments were prepared beforehand, and briefs drawn by skilful hands to be used at the proper time. Before these preliminaries were quite concluded, letters were received from the Attorney-General of a neighboring State, which, by their tone, plainly showed that the writer considered himself entitled to the management of the whole matter, and offers, it is said, were made to the authorities here and their colleagues, to take the control of such portions of the trials as this professional usurper chose to assign them? No proposition like this could be entertained. The _dramatis personæ_ had all been assigned their parts, and had studied their speeches. The machinery had been adjusted for a certain number of wheels, and more than these would clog the movement. Answer was made that there were no vacancies to be supplied; but if the Attorney-General chose to be present, some alteration might, perhaps, be made in the programme.

The chief Executive of the State he represented, would not permit his officer to be thus rebuffed. Complaint was formally lodged at Washington, the result of which was, that the whole management of the case was altered. The then Secretary of State wished to _compromise_; and when the District Attorney of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania arrived from Philadelphia, he was told that the affair was unfortunate indeed, but an alteration was unavoidable. The Attorney-General must be allowed to have his own way; and those who had expended their time and talents in making the proper preparations of the case, were to acknowledge him as their leader.

The effect of this misunderstanding was manifest upon the trial, and to it is solely attributable the fact that, professionally speaking, the management of the prosecution in Hanway’s case was, in many respects, a complete blunder. Had the original intentions been pursued to completion, the Bar of Philadelphia would not have been surprised by the imbecile efforts that were made from time to time to bolster up the mistakes and omissions constantly resulting from a misapprehension of both the law and the facts of the case, on the part of those who had assumed its management.

The papers of Saturday, the 22d of November, announced that the trials would begin on Monday, and added, that “Such conveniences as the limited room in which the trials are to take place (would allow) have been prepared; but they are totally inadequate to the occasion, and we shall not be surprised to hear of _hundreds_ being disappointed who would like to hear the evidence and the arguments of counsel.”

This alone would be a sufficient answer to the absurdity of the statements made by Mr. Brent in his official report, in regard to the favors shown by the Marshal to the male and female members of the Anti-Slavery Society, and to free negroes. The extract is made from “Cummings’ Evening Bulletin,”--the authority Mr. Brent cites in support of his allegations. It was penned before the commencement of the trial, and may be considered as the testimony of an unbiassed witness.

If, however, the Governor of Maryland, to whom Mr. Brent’s report is made, had taken the trouble to examine the files of the paper in question, he would have found that on the first day of the trial, the reporter says: “Long before the hour arrived for the Court to meet, the seats were occupied by _white_ men, and _not a female_ made her appearance. We did not see a colored man in the room.” In the account of the second day, he says: “A very few members of the Society of Friends were present; and these few were probably the personal friends of Hanway.” In the report of the third day, no remark is made about persons present. The reporter, however, says: “The seating of every person who desires to be present cannot, of course, be accomplished.” On the fourth day, it is said: “The same absence of colored persons is visible.” Throughout the whole trial, no mention is made of colored persons _in the Court room_, except those brought up from prison to be identified by the witness Kline.

The exclusion of “a respectable gentleman from Maryland,” one of the witnesses,--mentioned by Mr. B., is not a case of extremity. During the examination of the witnesses who were called to testify to Kline’s good character, a gentleman of Philadelphia, a member of the Bar, and consequently an _officer of the Court_, who had been subpoenaed, when called to the stand, before he answered the questions asked him, complained to the Judges that he had been denied admission to the Court room. Towards the close of the trial another member of the Bar complained to the Court of the same thing. In both cases the Marshal was called to account, and justified the conduct of his deputies by saying the room was too small to admit all who desired to be present. The Judge told him to do the best he could, and that all members of the Bar _must_ be admitted.

The writer of this went away more than a dozen times because it was impossible to get near the door, and saw hundreds do the same thing. He was personally known to every officer of the Court, and could have gained admission had there been standing room.

Those who wished to hear and see, secured their places betimes. If Mr. Brent had read his favorite authority more closely, he would have seen that the reporter remarks jocosely upon the perseverance and patience of those who “secured their seats by seven o’clock A. M., and waited till ten for the opening of the Court.” Had the “respectable gentleman from Maryland” been out of bed in time, he might have secured a front seat.

On Monday, the twenty-fourth of November, the Trial was commenced at eleven o’clock A. M., in the United States Court room, at Philadelphia. The entire second floor of the building, known as Independence Hall, is leased by the General Government for the sittings of the Circuit and District Courts. The eastern portion, immediately over the room in which Congress held its sessions when Independence was declared, is divided into the offices of the Clerk and Marshal, Jury and Witness rooms, &c. The western portion is the Court room, and is probably one of the most elegantly furnished, for court purposes, in the country. The learned Judge of the District Court takes great pride in having everything about him conducted in the most polished style, and few Courts can boast of more urbane and polite attendants than the Circuit and District Courts of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For all ordinary purposes, for admiralty causes, the hearing of patent cases, and other business usually transacted in these Courts, the room is sufficiently large. But on occasions attracting much of public attention, great inconvenience is felt by all whose duties compel them to be in attendance; and during the trial of Castner Hanway, as has just been seen, complaints were loud and frequent.

For this occasion the room had been refitted. Gas fixtures of the chastest designs had been erected, in anticipation of evening sessions. Ventilators of the most appropriate patterns had been placed in the ceiling, controlled by cords terminating at the bench of the Judges, so that a uniform temperature could be preserved. Nothing was wanting but space to promote the ease and comfort of those who were to figure in the solemn investigation about to take place.

Long before the appointed hour, the Court room was filled with persons anxious to witness the opening ceremonies. Officers were in attendance to see that the spectators were seated, and no more were admitted than the room would contain comfortably. In the lobbies and on the stair-way, policemen were stationed to prevent the crowd from rushing up, to allow those to pass who had been called thither by duty, and to preserve order below. For the first ten days they were retained on duty, their number being diminished by degrees until public curiosity had subsided.

At eleven o’clock, Judges Grier and Kane took their seats, and the Court was opened by the usual proclamation. The clerk called the names of one hundred and sixteen persons who had been summoned by the Marshal to attend as Jurors. Among them were some of the oldest and best known citizens of the eastern part of the State of Pennsylvania,--men whose lives were a guaranty that they were above all petty influences and vulgar prejudices,--who could safely take the oath prescribed by law for a juror.

Eighty-one answered to their names. Several of the absent had sent excuses, and nineteen of those present were released either absolutely or temporarily on account of sickness or other causes. Preliminary arrangements were made for reporting the proceedings phonographically for the use of the Court and the counsel. Some conversation was had as to the propriety of restraining the publication of the testimony, &c., of the trial in the newspapers, for fear that, upon a second trial, an unprejudiced panel of jurors could not be found. But no order was made by the Court, and during the whole trial, the papers of this and the adjoining cities contained full accounts of everything that transpired. The District Attorney then gave notice that “as at present advised, he would in the morning move for the arraignment of Castner Hanway,”--and the Court adjourned for the day.

On Tuesday morning, before ten o’clock, the Court room was again filled. After a few more excuses of jurors had been heard, the District Attorney for the United States, moved for the arraignment of the defendant, Castner Hanway. Mr. John M. Read, one of the counsel who afterwards appeared for the prisoner, made some remarks in regard to the informality in the summoning of the panel of jurors, and cited several cases to sustain the objections which he informally made to the whole array. The District Attorney in reply alleged that the return to the _venire_ was perfectly proper, but intimated that if the counsel for defence would move to quash the array, there would be no opposition on the part of the Government. This was the first intimation given to the public that the jurymen returned were unsatisfactory to the prosecution. There had been rumors that the District Attorney himself intended making a motion to quash, but no official dissatisfaction had been previously known. To such a proposition, however, the defendant could not agree. He had been in a felon’s cell for more than two months, and his health and strength were fast giving way to the confinement. He and his friends had spared neither pains nor expense to procure the attendance of witnesses, and were as well prepared then for trial as they ever could be. Any panel of impartial men was all he asked, and this he had no reason to doubt were then summoned, as by law, he was entitled to have them. Yet to give the Government as fair an opportunity as its officers desired, another of his counsel, Mr. Thaddeus Stevens, offered to make the motion to quash, on condition that the prisoner be admitted to “_ample_ bail,” and the trial be ordered to take place in the county of Lancaster. The District Attorney refused to agree to this, and the clerk read to the defendant the Indictment.

This paper, containing five counts, charged him with wickedly and traitorously intending to levy war upon the United States. It embraced the usual amount of legal nonsense, and recited as much of the transactions at Christiana on the morning of the 11th September, as were necessary.

After the reading had concluded, the clerk asked him--

How say you, Castner Hanway, are you guilty or not guilty?

_Hanway._ Not guilty.

_Clerk._ How will you be tried?

_Hanway._ By God and my country.

_Clerk._ God send you a good deliverance.

The counsel who appeared in his defence were: JOHN M. READ of Philadelphia, THADDEUS STEVENS of Lancaster, JOS. J. LEWIS of Westchester, THEODORE CUYLER of Philadelphia, and W. ARTHUR JACKSON, ditto.

On behalf of the government were present: JOHN W. ASHMEAD, District Attorney of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, GEO. L. ASHMEAD of Philadelphia, JAMES R. LUDLOW, ditto; and in the phonographic report it is stated that “the State of Maryland was represented by ROBERT J. BRENT, JAMES COOPER and R. M. LEE.”

Why such a statement should appear in the only report of the case printed by authority is totally inexplicable. The government of the United States had no right to admit the State of Maryland as a party to the record. If Hanway had offended against any State authority, it was against the State of Pennsylvania. The statement, then, must be a mere _dictum_ of the reporter, and the entire array of counsel for the prosecution must have been by _permission_ of the United States government.

The counsel for each side having been formally recognized, the clerk proceeded to call a jury. The government submitted a series of six questions, which it was proposed to ask each juryman, touching his competency to be sworn. The first related to conscientious scruples on the subject of capital punishments--the usual question put in capital cases; the second, third, fourth and fifth asked, in different forms, whether the juror had formed an opinion of the case; and the sixth asked his opinion of the Fugitive Slave Law. After remarks from the counsel on both sides, they were amended by the court, but not materially altered. The rest of the day was spent in selecting jurors, and discussing matters which arose from time to time upon their answers to the several questions put to them.

The third day passed in the same way, Minor points were raised by the counsel and decided by the court, but nothing of general interest occurred. It was, however, by this time, evident that the trial would occupy much time, and arrangements for the accommodation of the jury, witnesses, &c., were made accordingly. By three o’clock, eleven jurors had been sworn, as follows:

1. Robert Elliot, Perry county.
2. James Wilson, Adams county.
3. Thomas Connolly, Carbon county.
4. Peter Martin, Lancaster county.
5. Robert Smith, Adams county.
6. William R. Saddler, Adams county.
7. James N. Hopkins, Lancaster county.
8. John Junkin, Perry county.
9. Solomon Newman, Pike county.
10. Jonathan Wainwright, Philadelphia county.
11. Ephraim Fenton, Montgomery county.

The 12th, James Cowden, Lancaster county, was called but not sworn at the time. The Court had determined to adjourn over till Friday, Thursday being the day appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania as Thanksgiving day. As the rule of law would have required the jury to remain together, after the panel was complete, until a verdict was rendered or they were discharged by the court, for their comfort, Mr. Cowden was not sworn. They were allowed to separate, and his Honor, Judge Kane, informed them that apartments had been provided for them at the American Hotel, immediately opposite the courthouse, where he would advise them to remove their wardrobe during the interval.

On Friday morning, names of the witnesses for the Government were called, the twelfth Juror was sworn and the Court was ready to proceed with the trial.

It was known that the defendant was to be tried for Treason, but how the acts he committed were to be construed into this grave offence was a mystery which now was about to be developed. He was to see the witnesses face to face, and hear them testify in regard to the occurrences at Christiana. Public expectation was anxiously awaiting the developments for the first time about to be made. Vague rumors were to give place to proof, and a precedent to be established that would settle many perplexing questions which had arisen from sectional interpretations of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.

Mr. Ashmead, the District Attorney, opened the cause in a speech about an hour and a half long. Relying on information he had received from the lips of witnesses examined in private, he committed the common error of stating that some things would be testified to, which were only heard of in these opening remarks. He rehearsed the indictments, gave a short account of the occurrences at Parker’s house, spoke of its being the result of a combination of which he had evidence, and concluded by explaining to the Jury the law of Treason, quoting at large from the books. His remarks were given to the public through the press, and being the first authentic publication from the trial, were generally read. It created the impression that Hanway was guilty as he stood indicted--no one doubting that witnesses would prove the exact statements made by the cautious District Attorney.

When Mr. Ashmead had concluded his remarks, Z. Collins Lee, Esq., the U. S. District Attorney for the District of Maryland, appeared, and was recognized as one of the counsel for the Government. The array of counsel for the prosecution then comprised one U. S. Senator, one Attorney General of a sovereign State, two U. S. District Attornies, one Recorder of the city of Philadelphia and two members of the Philadelphia Bar, who boasted of no official position. With such a combination it was confidently expected that, as a matter of practice, aside from the issues to be tried, the management of this cause would be a model which the profession would be safe in imitating.

After proving the appointment of Mr. E. D. Ingraham as Commissioner of the United States, Mr. Ingraham was called and testified to the issuing of the warrants for the arrest of Noah Buley, Nelson Ford, Joshua Hammond and George Hammond.

At this stage of the case Mr. J. M. Read asked that the witnesses for the prosecution be kept out of the Court-Room during the progress of the trial. Mr. Ashmead asked for the same order as regarded the witnesses for the defendant. The Court, admitting the propriety of both requests, granted them, and directed the Marshal to provide suitable accommodations. There being no objection on the part of the defence, the Rev. Mr. Gorsuch, who had been subpoenaed for the proof of some collateral matter, was allowed to remain.

Drafts of Parker’s house and the fields around it were presented, and their accuracy proven.

Henry H. Kline, the Deputy Marshal, who had attempted to make the arrests, was next called. It was known that he was the “leading witness” on the part of the prosecution. He had been the leader of the U. S. forces in this contest; had taken an active part in having the neighborhood of Christiana placed under arrest; had declared martial law there; and had been the principal witness at the examinations in Christiana and Lancaster. His testimony was naturally looked for with some interest, as well by those who knew the character of the man, as by those who had then heard of him for the first time. His evidence is contained in 33 printed pages of the report published under the auspices of the Court,--more than one tenth of the whole work. It is not our purpose to speak of it at length; we have already spoken of the facts as they occurred. The portion of his testimony bearing most upon the cause, was his statement of the interview with Hanway and Lewis at the bars. The jury were informed of the _truth_ of this matter before the trial was concluded, by other witnesses.

During the examination of Kline the question of identity of those present at the transaction came up, and the most of those prisoners whom he had called by name were ordered to be brought up to Court on the next (Saturday) morning. It is this which gives Mr. Brent the offence of which he so loudly complains in his printed report (p. 5) of the trial to Gov. Lowe. He comments on the dress of the negroes, the manner in which they had combed their hair, their position in the crowded court room, and of the conduct of the officers having charge of the prisoners who thus gave them “aid and comfort.”

In his zeal, Mr. Brent probably forgets what he must have learned in his instructor’s office, that the Law presumes every man innocent, and requires that he shall be treated with every possible attention to his personal comfort, while confined in prison awaiting trial upon any charge. He certainly must remember the sumptuous mode of living allowed to Dr. Webster in Boston, to the Knapps when charged with instigating the murder of their uncle, and many other similar cases well known to every Tyro in the profession.

Besides this presumption of law, the friends of every prisoner must have free access to him until conviction. The jailer is only responsible for his appearance at the proper time, and may permit him any privileges, save liberty, to which he is entitled as a free man. When these negroes were brought to the prison, from Lancaster, they were dressed in their summer clothing. Their wives and children were too poor to come to Philadelphia to attend to their comforts. It is a strange cause of complaint that they found persons humane enough to furnish them with proper garments. A moment’s reflection would see the reason why “their comforts and their clothes should be, in every respect, alike.” The supply was probably furnished from the _same_ store, at the _same_ time, and for the _same_ purpose. Instead of being a reproach, it is an honor to our city, that persons were found who were unwilling to permit these creatures to suffer for the want of those comforts which are not furnished at the public expense; and were Mr. Brent better acquainted with our citizens, he would see the same thing done in many other cases, in which humanity could not be construed into “bullying and bravado” of such a Government as that of which we are all proud.

On the morning on which the prisoners were brought into Court, Mr. Read represented to the Court the effect confinement had on Hanway’s health; and the Court instructed the Marshal, that when thus suffering, the authorities had “no right, if he can be safely kept otherwise, to keep him in a manner injurious to his health. If the Marshal can give this prisoner better lodging, feeling certain he can keep him safely, we have no objection to any indulgence of that nature, and direct the Marshal to grant it to him.”

After Kline had concluded, Dr. Thomas Pierce was called. His testimony embraces about thirteen pages of the paper book. He repeated substantially the evidence of the Marshal. Mr. J. M. Gorsuch was next called. His story was clear and consistent throughout. Mr. Dickinson Gorsuch followed him. These two gentlemen being one a nephew, the other a son of Mr. Edward Gorsuch, were not cross-examined by the defence. Messrs. H. Hutchings and N. Nelson were next called.

These witnesses had all accompanied Kline to Parker’s house, and testified to the occurrences there. The remainder were called to prove what transpired after the attempt to make the arrests had been abandoned, or to other circumstances deemed necessary by the prosecution to make out their case. After Miller and John Nott had been examined, the Court adjourned.

On Monday morning, after the excuses of several jurymen had been heard, and an order made for the alleviation of the condition of Collister Wilson, one of the prisoners awaiting trial, the cause was resumed by recalling Miller and John Nott. The array of counsel had, on Saturday, neglected to elicit something that had been, “upon consultation,” deemed of importance. The examination was resumed, and continued at length upon minor points, until the Court, at the instance of defendant’s counsel, stopped the repetition.

Alderman Reigart and Wm. Proudfoot, constable of Sadsbury township, testified to the conduct of Hanway and Lewis, when bullied by Kline at the house of Frederick Zerker, where they had surrendered themselves to the officers. The object of this was to show, that their silence was tantamount to a confession. Alderman Reigart testified to having come down from Lancaster with a _posse_ of one hundred and fifty men to make arrests.

Charles Smith was offered for the purpose of proving that notice of the intended arrest had been given to Hanway and others, by Samuel Williams. The evidence was objected to, the question argued at length, and the objection overruled by the Court. Smith then testified merely to the fact, that Williams had given notice to him, but did not know the same had been given to Hanway.

Dr. Cain testified to nearly the same facts, and, in addition, to his attendance upon an annual meeting of the Anti-Slavery Society of Pennsylvania, in West Chester, some time previously. This was the only attempt made to sustain the allegations of the opening speech of the District Attorney, in regard to combination for the purpose of resisting the Fugitive Slave Law. Two colored men, John Roberts and Samuel Hanson, were next placed upon the stand. Towards the end of Hanson’s testimony, a discussion arose upon a point of evidence, in which Messrs. Brent and Read took part. Their remarks were diverted somewhat from the purpose; and Mr. Brent took occasion to explain his position in the case, though, at that time, his position had not been assailed. He asserted his right arose by reason of an invitation from the Federal authorities, though, he said, he came by authority of the Executive of Maryland. Altogether, his attempt to define his position totally failed; and the public would have understood the matter quite as well, if, according to the rule, no answer had been made to the concluding remarks of the defendant’s counsel.

Jacob Wood testified that Elijah Lewis had called him from his work that morning, telling him that kidnappers were at Parker’s house. Mr. D. Gorsuch then identified the coat his father wore on the morning of the attempt to arrest; and to the surprise of every one, the case of the United States was announced to be concluded.

Seldom do there occur like discrepancies between an opening speech and evidence offered to sustain it. Those observers who, relying upon the loose statements of the public journals, really believed treason had been committed, and, without any personal feeling towards the particular defendants, hoped for a conviction, were sadly disappointed. The general public were astonished that so much smoke had arisen from so small a fire, and wondered what could be the reason. While the friends of Hanway and his colleagues, knowing from the first the exact truth, were gratified that the _denouement_ was in precise conformity with what they had foreseen _must_ be the result of this mockery of justice.

The Court adjourned earlier than usual, both to give counsel an opportunity of consultation, and to await the return of Messrs. Cooper and Stevens, who were absent at Washington, where they had gone to be present at the opening of the thirty-second Congress.

The next morning, Tuesday, Mr. Cuyler opened for the defence. After expressing his surprise at the insufficiency of the testimony offered to prove what had been threatened, he commented on the strange and unprecedented array of counsel in the case for the Government. He spoke of the fidelity of the State of Pennsylvania to the Constitution, and for himself and colleagues endorsed the eulogistic remarks of the opposite side, upon the value of the Union. The defendant, he said, did not come to justify the transactions at Christiana, but to say that “he was in no way a party to those outrages.” He was a native of Delaware, had, at five years of age, removed with his father to Chester county, Pa. After living there for several years he had resided in Maryland, and afterwards in one of the Western States. About three years previous to the trial he had returned to Chester county, and in 1850 married and settled in Lancaster county, near Christiana. Mr. Cuyler then mentioned two cases of kidnapping which had occurred in Lancaster county, and spoke of the natural feeling in the neighborhood in regard to such outrages. He then detailed the occurrences of the morning of the eleventh of September, stated that it would be proved that Hanway had been told there were “kidnappers at Parker’s house,” that it was this which carried him there; that it was owing to his and Lewis’ exertions that more blood was not shed; and that, by throwing himself between the negroes and their pursuers, Hanway had saved the life of Dr. Thomas Pierce. He then stated that he would show by “ample proof the notorious bad name of Kline for truth;” and closed his remarks with his view of the Law of Treason, quoting at length from many acknowledged authorities.

Thomas Pennington was then called, to testify to the “kidnapping and carrying away of colored persons, in the neighborhood of the Gap, within the last year.”

The testimony was objected to, and a long argument ensued. The Court ruled that it was important, as bearing upon the question of intention, and must be admitted. The witness then stated, that in January, 1851, just after nightfall, two men entered his house, presented a pistol at the head of a colored man, who lived with him, and threatened to blow his brains out if he resisted. Other men followed, bound the black man, dragged him off, placed him in a carriage, in waiting, and hurried him away. Henry Ray, Rachel Chamberlin and Miller Pennington testified to the same facts.

Elijah Lewis was next called to the stand. In the absence of Mr. Ashmead, who it appeared had determined to object to the witness, Mr. Brent made the objections, on the ground that he was interested in the issue of the trial,--i. e. if his testimony should procure an acquittal of Hanway, would this not enure to the acquittal of Lewis on the joint indictments against them, as Hanway could not be tried a second time? The objection was overruled by the Court, and the witness admitted. He was then carefully examined and cross-examined, and gave an account of the transaction, from the time he was first told that “there were kidnappers at Parker’s house,” until he delivered himself into custody.

Henry Burt, who lived with Castner Hanway during September, 1851, was next called. He testified to Lewis’ having told Hanway that there were kidnappers at Parker’s house. While Hanway was eating his breakfast, he saddled the horse. After the affray he saw Kline, and had some conversation with him.

Jacob Whitson testified that Kline, three days after the riot, came to his father’s house in search of Parker, who he said had shot Edward Gorsuch.

When the Court sat the next morning, Mr. R. M. Lee, considering himself misrepresented by Mr. Cuyler, in his remarks the day previous, explained the position he occupied in the case. The subject of counsel seemed to be a painful one to most of the gentlemen engaged on the part of the prosecution, and no opportunity was lost to explain to the public the relative position occupied by each. Mr. Cuyler, of course, when he heard that “the gentleman did not occupy the position of a volunteer, withdrew his remarks.”

Thompson Loughead was then examined as to the occurrences of the morning; Samuel H. Laughlin as to conversations with Kline; Isaac Rogers, who lived within a few hundred yards of Parker’s house, as to the occurrences of the morning; and John C. Dickinson in relation to conversations with Dr. T. G. Pierce, after the transaction. Dr. Patterson and J. G. Henderson also testified to statements made by Dr. Pierce in relation to the occurrences of the morning.

Hon. W. D. Kelly, one of the Associate Judges of the Court of Common Pleas, for the City and County of Philadelphia, Francis Jobson, (collector of water rents,) Wm. D. Francke, Daniel Evans, (fire-proof chest maker,) Isaiah G. Stratton, Wm. Stroud, (officer in the Custom House,) Jacob Walker, John Hinkle, Norman Ackley, (constable,) Anthony Hoover, Aaron B. Fithian, Geo. K. Wise, John Mackey, Andrew Redheffer, John McEwen, Thomas Liston, William Hopkins, James Smith, William Nutt, John Manderson, Jacob Glassmire, John Dittus, Joseph Parker, Charles H. Roberts,[B] testified that they knew Henry H. Kline. They were citizens of Philadelphia, and some of them had been acquainted with him for twelve or fourteen years. When asked the question prescribed by law, “What is his general character for truth and veracity?” the answer uniformly was, “It is bad,” or words to that effect. Some, and among these Judge Kelly, when asked, “Would you believe him on his oath?” answered, “That would depend on circumstances;” some answered positively “no,” and others so qualified their answers as to show their belief that his testimony should be received cautiously.

John Carr, a blacksmith, who lived four or five miles from Parker’s, testified that on the night of the 10th of September, between eight and nine o’clock, he followed Harvey Scott (one of the colored men whom Kline swore he saw at Parker’s) up stairs to bed, in the garret of his house, and buttoned the door after him; the next morning (the 11th) he unbuttoned the same door, called him down, saw him immediately go about his daily employment, and had him employed that day in his shop. John S. Cochran, who also lived with John Carr, testified to substantially the same facts.

Lewis Cooper was examined as to the transactions of the morning of the 11th, after the riot. He carried from the ground, in his dearborn, the wounded Dickinson Gorsuch, and the body of Edward Gorsuch. He testified to some conversations with several witnesses, and that he was one of the neighbors who accompanied the corpse to Maryland.

John Houston was called, and testified that about the time of the riot there was a party of men at work on the railroad near Christiana, who were called to work in the morning by a bugle; and to some other immaterial matters.

Enoch Harlan, Joseph M. Thompson, George Mitchell, Levi Wayne Thompson, Andrew Mitchell, Wharton Pennock, Samuel Pennock, John Bernard, Calvin Russell, Isaac Walton, James Coates, Ellis P. Irvin, Geo. W. Irwin, testified that they knew the defendant Hanway, some of them having known him from boyhood. They all represented him as an “orderly, quiet, well-disposed and peaceable citizen.”

With this the testimony on the part of the defendant closed. They had proven all they promised--the notoriously bad character of Kline for truth and veracity, the good character of Hanway, the acts of kidnapping, and such other circumstances as repelled the presumption of combination; but most important of all, the fact that Hanway went suddenly to Parker’s house, upon information that there were kidnappers around it, to prevent if possible the recurrence of such scenes as had more than once appalled the neighborhood; that when shown the legal authority of the officer, he was going away, and only delayed his departure from the ground to use his exertions in preventing bloodshed.

The prosecution, in turn, offered rebutting testimony. Mr. G. L. Ashmead, in his opening remarks, offered to sustain the character of Kline, which, it seems, was thought to have been somewhat damaged by the attack made upon it; to prove (if the attendance of witnesses could be procured) that the seizure from the house of Chamberlain was not a case of kidnapping; that in September, 1850, armed bands of negroes paraded the “streets of Lancaster” (city) in search of slave-hunters; that in April, 1851, a Mr. Samuel Worthington had been prevented from making arrest of an alleged fugitive from labor, in the vicinity of Christiana; to contradict some witnesses who had related conversations with Kline; to prove that Harvey Scott was at Parker’s house, by the testimony of Scott himself; to prove that after the riot Kline had acted as a good officer; and that sundry meetings had been held in Lancaster county in favor of the “higher law.”

E. G. Wood, (police officer,) James Buckley, (Lieutenant of city police,) John Hence, Samuel Goldy, Peter Keller, (an ex-police officer,) Charles Worrell, (innkeeper,) William McDaniels, (tax collector,) Wm. B. Rankin, (attorney,) Alderman Brazier, Thomas Stainroop, John S. Keyser, (marshal of police,) Jacob Weightman, (bar-tender,) John Gamble, (police officer,) John Millward, W. W. Weeks, Andrew Flick, (constable,) F. M. Adams, (attorney,) C. B. F. O’Neill, (do.,) Aaron Green, James Barber, (constable,) James Brown, Sr., (innkeeper,) John H. Moore, (police officer,) Daniel Weyman, Thomas Connell, John Martin, Robert L. Curry, E. J. Charnley, (clerk,) D. A. Davis, (interpreter,) D. L. Wilson, (carriage driver,) Jacob Dulther, John McElroy, (clerk,) J. W. Stanroop, Egbert Summerdyke, Nathan Lucans, Lafayette Stainroop, Thomas Downing, W. D. Haylett, D. D. Emerick, D. W. Rickafus, James Pidgeon, Albert G. Stevens, James Brown, Jr., David Vicely, W. L. Gray, John Selets, Henry Cornish, Samuel Babb, Thomas Wallace, John C. Lamb, Wm. Ray, (innkeeper,) Joseph A. Nunes, (attorney,) Joseph Abrams, (attorney,) Michael Barr, (innkeeper,) W. W. Hankinson, Charles H. Lex, Thomas E. Connell, Jr., J. L. Thomas, (attorney,) William Connell, (gas-fitter,) Joseph S. Brewster, (attorney,) E. E. Pettit, (do.,) Wm. E. Lehman, (do.,) Dr. Vondersmith, Alderman White, Charles P. Buckingham, Phillip Winnemore, J. C. Smith, George Carter, J. P. Loughead, (attorney,) were called to support Kline’s character. Many of them said, they had heard his character called in question, but that they would believe him on his oath.

William Noble was next called, to prove that “in the month of September, 1851, the county of Lancaster, and particularly the neighborhood of Christiana, was patrolled by armed bodies of negroes, after a report that slaveholders had come up there for slaves. That these armed bands of negroes went from house to house, in that neighborhood, searching for the slaveholders, swearing vengeance against them, and expressing a determination to kill them.”

The object of this was to sustain the allegation of combination--the gist of the entire case, in the proof of which the prosecution had so signally failed.

To this extraordinary offer, Mr. Read, on behalf of the defence, objected on several grounds. The evidence was in chief, and not rebutting testimony. It was the bounden duty of the prosecution, as well by the rules of evidence as in mercy to the defendants, to have offered it before the close of their case. Besides this, the Act of Congress requires that the United States shall furnish, three days before a trial for treason, the names of those witnesses whom they intend to examine touching the charges against the prisoner.

Mr. G. L. Ashmead and Mr. Brent both replied, asserting that the existence of this testimony was not known to them at the commencement of the trial; and arguing that this was rebutting testimony; they could find no part of the defendant’s case which it could be considered as rebutting, except the opening remarks of counsel.

Both members of the Court decided the evidence offered to be in chief, and sustained the objections of Mr. Read.

Samuel Worthington was next offered, to prove that some time in 1851, he and a party of men went to the neighborhood of Christiana, in search of a fugitive slave, and stopped at the house of a man by the name of Haines; that “immediately the same signals were given at that house as at Parker’s;” and to show by this that “the motive which actuated Hanway and others was not of a lawful and legal character, but of a treasonable and criminal kind.”

The same objections were made as before to Noble’s testimony, and the defence again expressed their disapprobation of giving evidence to rebut lawyers’ speeches.

The Court overruled the offer, on the same grounds as had rejected Noble’s testimony, and the witness was withdrawn.

Cist Cockney was next examined, to contradict Jacob Whitson, who had testified in regard to conversations of Kline. John Bacon testified to a difficulty between Kline and some officers at Christiana.

Harvey Scott was called “to prove that the testimony given by Carr and others--the alibi--is not correct; that he was on the ground, and to explain how he got out of the room and proceeded to the scene of action.” After some conversation the question was asked, “Were you at the battle on the morning of the 11th September last?”

_Answer._ I gave my evidence that I was there, once. I was frightened at the time I was taken up, and I said I was there, but I was not.

_Question._ Were you there on the morning of the 11th September last?

_Answer._ I was proved to be there, but I was not there.

_Question._ On the morning of the 11th September last?

_Answer._ No sir. Kline swore I was there, and at the time I was taken up I told the man I was not there; and they took me to Christiana, and I was frightened, and I didn’t know what to say, and I said what they told me.

The witness was not cross-examined, but, after a threat to prosecute for perjury, was discharged.

The next morning (Dec. 2) an informal conversation took place in regard to the evidence of Scott. In answer to all the imputations of tampering, made by the prosecution and others, it is sufficient to say, that from the time of his arrest till the examination on the first of December, he was confined in the debtors’ apartment of the Moyamensing Prison, in custody of the U. S. officers, and beyond the reach of any person, except such as went there on behalf of the prosecution. Like all liars, when left to himself and his own reflections, he concluded it was best to tell the whole truth, especially when this exculpated him from the difficulty into which his own folly and weakness had plunged him. It had been proved, beyond a doubt, that Scott was _not_ within three miles of Parker’s house on the morning of the 11th, and his declarations made that morning to witnesses who were examined, proved that he was capable of telling the truth, when uninfluenced by fear. As soon as arrested, he was threatened with imprisonment and death; but at first he told a consistent story. Soon the coward’s hope induced him to make false statements. Ignorant, and not gifted with the ordinary intelligence belonging to persons of his condition in life, he knew not the nature and obligation of an oath, and swore as he believed would be acceptable to those whom he supposed to have power over his liberty, and perhaps his life. From the time of the preliminary examinations until brought upon the stand, he was in the care and keeping of the agents of the prosecution; and, as appears by the statements made at the time of his examination, he had been visited in his cell, after the testimony for the prosecution had closed, by some of the counsel for the prosecution, and there told the story which they believed he would repeat under oath. They had their manifest reasons for not calling upon him to give evidence in chief, since they did not dare to do so, even in rebuttal, till he had been visited in prison, and the probable nature of his testimony ascertained!

It was also said, that the day before his examination “he was conversed with by several negroes, in the Marshal’s office, who had to be sent away from him.” This may account for his finally telling the truth. It is certain, that in such a place no one had an opportunity of quite so full a conversation with him as could have been held in his cell at Moyamensing prison. But the _sight_ of his former comrades was sufficient to compel him to exercise even the small amount of conscience which nature had bestowed upon him. But if it were granted, for the sake of argument, that “some negroes” had a conversation with him, by what rule of right or principle of law, could they be condemned for entreating the unhappy man not to degrade himself by committing the loathsome crime of perjury? Mr. Brent’s pamphlet implies the existence of such a code of morals; but if it exist at all, its influence must be confined to the borders of the State he represented.

Dr. Pierce was recalled, to refute the charges of cowardice, which it was said he had, in conversation, made against Kline; and Dickinson Gorsuch, to testify that he saw two of his father’s slaves at Parker’s house.

With this the examination of witnesses closed. Nothing was wanting to complete the trial but the arguments of counsel, the charge of the Judge and the verdict. Those who had attentively watched the testimony, plainly saw that the attempt to sustain the charge of Treason was a failure. The counsel for the prosecution, if rumor is to be depended upon, had for several days abandoned all hopes of a conviction. There were many persons, however, who believed the jury would not be able to agree upon a verdict. Public excitement had subsided, and towards the close of the examination of witnesses, the court room comfortably seated all who chose to assemble to hear the proceedings. The desire to hear the speeches again drew a crowd, and expectation was raised to the highest pitch in regard to one of the counsel, who, when his turn came, considered that it was not necessary for the interest of his client to occupy the time of the Court.

After some preliminary arrangements, Mr. Ludlow began his remarks to the jury and occupied the remainder of the day. He commenced by hastily repeating the part Hanway had taken in the transactions of the morning of the 11th of September. Then citing the 3d Section of Article III of the Constitution of the United States, and the decisions of all courts upon it, argued that the acts committed came within the provisions of the Law. He said that “taking the whole transaction together, this man Hanway, if guilty at all, is guilty by virtue of his presence upon the ground and joining with the conspirators, the whole transaction being the overt act.” His conduct, Mr. L., thought, was not that of an innocent man; but that it confirmed the hypothesis of guilty intent before going to Parker’s. The conflict of testimony to this point, must, he thought, be decided in favor of the Government’s witnesses. Elijah Lewis’s evidence, he told the Jury, must be weighed with the utmost caution. Without attributing perjury to him, it was suggested “that he would shape his course, so as to swear his friend who was the leader, he being the lieutenant, out of the difficulty, and his friend would come and swear him out in turn.”

The alleged case of kidnapping, he said, was committed by a party of imprudent Southerners, who, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Prigg’s case, had taken the law in their own hands and carried their slave away without process. He argued, too, that Hanway’s good character could not avail him in such a prosecution. The testimony in regard to Kline’s bad character was, he thought, the result of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, and was more than met by the witnesses who had been produced in rebuttal. He then defended Kline from the imputation of cowardice, which it appeared rested upon him, from his conduct at Parker’s house, and contended he had acted as a good officer and brave man. Mr. L. then pointed out and attempted to reconcile to the Jury some discrepancies in the evidence, and concluded by some eloquent remarks upon the value and importance of the Union.

The next morning, (Saturday December 6th,) before the argument was resumed, Mr. Brent called the attention of the court to an article in a paper called the Pennsylvania Freeman. It contained an account of the serving up of a dinner for the prisoners on Thanksgiving day, and stated that the Marshal had participated with them. After some rather severe remarks from the Bench upon the character of the paper, the Marshal made an explanation of the matter with which Mr. Brent expressed himself perfectly satisfied.

Whatever may have been the object of presenting the subject to the Court at that time, whether to “give a public officer an opportunity of offering a public explanation,” or for any other purpose, it certainly had the effect of casting odium upon the prisoner at the bar. It was extraneous matter and as such should have been withheld till the conclusion of the trial. But when offered, the defence did not choose to exercise their right to object, not wishing to prejudice the defendant by any act which, on the part of illiberal counsel, might be called a disposition to stifle a full and fair investigation, of what (had not its folly and absurdity been made public) might, by _innuendo_ and such other tricks, have been handled before the Jury in a manner prejudicial to the defendant.

Mr. Lewis then began his remarks in behalf of the defence. He deprecated, in strong terms, the whole prosecution, and alleged it had been commenced in a moment of excitement and public phrenzy. Had a little time been allowed for reflection, for inquiry into the facts, to ascertain Castner Hanway’s character, this issue would never have been presented to this jury. He suggested that the whole proceeding had taken this course at the instigation of the authorities of a neighboring State. The people of Pennsylvania did not deserve such treatment. They had always been loyal, and no better evidence of this is needed than the course and character of their legislation. Mr. Lewis then hastily rehearsed the different acts of Assembly upon the subject, mentioning the objects and purposes of each, and in some cases their private history. From these it appeared that the State of Pennsylvania had ever attempted to establish two points: “To provide a means for the recovery of fugitives within her borders, and to protect her own free black population. The first she did from comity, the last from duty.” The course of Maryland, had, he remarked, been uniformly the opposite of this. She had treated the free black subjects of Pennsylvania with habitual harshness and severity. After further comments upon the relative course of the two States, and asserting the right of every citizen of Pennsylvania, to interpose his influence when injury to her people or violence to her laws is threatened, he repeated the remark made by one of his colleagues that no one deprecated the unfortunate occurrences on the morning of the 11th more than Castner Hanway, and that neither he nor his counsel came there to justify, excuse, or palliate them. In their management of the defence they had desired to obtain not only justice to the living, but to observe a due respect to the memory of the dead, and a regard for the lacerated feelings of those who were bound by near ties to the unfortunate murdered man. The Messrs. Gorsuch had not been asked a question in cross examination, but were permitted to tell their story as witnesses in their own way.