Chapter IV: Of the Circumstances of This Special Case, United States Versus (1)

THEODORE PARKER.

Here, Gentlemen, I shall speak of three things.

(I.) Of the Fugitive Slave Bill.

At the close of the Revolution there was a contradiction in the national consciousness: the People were divided between the Idea of Freedom and the Idea of Slavery. There consequently ensued a struggle between the two elements. This has continued ever since the Treaty of Peace in 1783.

Twice the Idea of Freedom has won an important victory: in 1787 Slavery was prohibited in the North-West Territory; in 1808 the African Slave Trade was abolished. Gentlemen, this is all that has been done for seventy-two years; the last triumph of American Freedom over American Slavery was forty-seven years ago!

But the victories of Slavery have been manifold: in 1787 Slavery came into the Constitution,--it was left in the individual States as a part of their "Republican form of government;" the slaves were counted fractions of men, without the personal rights of integral humanity, and so to be represented by their masters; and the rendition of fugitive slaves was provided for. In 1792 out of old territory a new Slave State was made and Kentucky came into the Union. Tennessee followed in 1796, Mississippi in 1817, Alabama in 1819, and thus four Slave States were newly made out of soil which the Declaration of Independence covered with ideal freedom. In 1793 the Federal government took Slavery under its special patronage and passed the first fugitive slave bill for the capture of such as should escape from bondage in one State, and flee to another. In 1803 Louisiana was purchased and Slavery left in that vast territory; thus the first expansion of our borders was an extension of bondage,--out of that soil three great States, Louisiana, Missouri, Arkansas, have since been made, all despotic, with more than half a million of Americans fettered there to-day. Florida was purchased as slave soil, and in 1845 made a State with perpetual Slavery written in its Constitution. In 1845 Texas was annexed and Slavery extended over nearly four hundred thousand square miles of once free soil; in 1848 Slavery was spread over California, Utah, and New Mexico. Here were seven great victories of Slavery over Freedom.

At first it seemed doubtful which was master in the federal councils; but in 1820, in a great battle--the Missouri Compromise--Slavery triumphed, and has ever since been master. In 1845 Texas was annexed, and Slavery became the open, acknowledged, and most insolent master. The rich, intelligent, and submissive North only registers the decrees of the poor, the ignorant, but the controlling South; accepts for Officers such as the master appoints, for laws what the Slave-driver commands. The Slave-Power became predominant in American politics, business, literature, and "Religion."

Gentlemen of the Jury, do you doubt what I say? Look at this Honorable Court,--at its Judges, its Attorney, at its Marshal, and its Marshal's Guard: they all hold their offices by petty serjeantry of menial service rendered to the Slave-Power. It would be an insult to any one of this august fraternity to hint that he had the faintest respect for the great Principles of American Liberty, or any love of justice for all men. I shall not be guilty of that "contempt of court." Gentlemen, I had expected that this Court would be solemnly opened with prayer. I knew whom the Slave-Power would select as its priest to "intercede with Heaven." I expected to hear the Rev. Nehemiah Adams, D.D., ask the God he worships and serves to take "a South-side view of American Slavery" in general, and in special of this prosecution of a minister of the Christian Religion for attempting to keep the Golden Rule. Should the Court hereafter indulge its public proclivity to prayer, that eminent divine will doubtless be its advocate--fit mediator for a Court which knows no Higher Law.

Well, Gentlemen, that sevenfold triumph was not enough. Slavery will never be contented so long as there is an inch of free soil in the United States! New victories must be attempted. Mr. Toombs has declared to this noble Advocate of Justice and Defender of Humanity, [John P. Hale] who renews the virtuous glories of his illustrious namesake, Sir Matthew Hale, that, "Before long the master will sit down with his slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument." But one thing disturbed our masters at the South--the concubine runs away from her lusty lord, the mulatto slave child from her white father; I have had the "best blood of Virginia," fugitive children of her "first families" in my own house, and have given many a dollar to help the sons and daughters of "Southern Democrats" enjoy a taste of Northern Democracy. The slaves would run away. The law of 1793 was not adequate to keep or catch these African Christians who heeded not the Southern command, "Slaves, obey your masters." The Decision of the Supreme Court in the Prigg case,[174] showed the disposition of the Federal Government, and took out of the hands of the individual States the defence of their own citizens. Still the slaves would run away. In 1849 there were more than five hundred fugitives from Southern Democracy in Boston--and their masters could not catch them. What a misfortune! Boston retained $200,000 of human Property of the Christian and chivalric South! Surely the Union was "in danger."

[Footnote 174: 16 Peters, 616.]

In 1850 came the fugitive slave bill. When first concocted, its author,--a restless politician, a man of small mind and mean character, with "Plantation manners,"--thought it was "too bad to pass." He designed it not for an actual law, but an insult to the North so aggravating that she must resist the outrage, and then there would be an opportunity for some excitement and agitation at the South--and perhaps some "nullification" in South Carolina and Virginia; and in that general fermentation who knows what scum would be thrown up! Even Mr. Clay "never expected the law would be enforced." "No Northern _gentleman_," said he, "will ever help return a fugitive slave." It seemed impossible for the bill to pass.

But at that time Massachusetts had in the Senate of the nation a disappointed politician, a man of great understanding, of most mighty powers of speech,--

"Created hugest that swim the ocean stream,"--

and what more than all else contributed to his success in life, the most magnificent and commanding personal appearance. At that time--his ambition nothing abated by the many years which make men venerable,--he was a bankrupt in money, a bankrupt in reputation, and a bankrupt in morals--I speak only of his public morals, not his private,--a bankrupt in political character, pensioned by the Money Power of the North. Thrice disappointed, he was at that time gaming for the Presidency. When the South laid down the fugitive slave bill, on the national Faro-table, Mr. Webster bet his all upon that card. He staked his mind--and it was one of vast compass; his eloquence, which could shake the continent; his position, the senatorial influence of Massachusetts; his wide reputation, which rung with many a noble word for justice and the Rights of man; he staked his conscience and his life. Gentlemen, you know the rest,--the card won, the South took the _trick_, and Webster lost all he could lose,--his conscience, his position, his reputation; not his wide-compassing mind, not his earth-shaking eloquence. Finally he lost his--life. Peace to his mighty shade. God be merciful to him that showed no mercy. The warning of his fall is worth more than the guidance of his success. Let us forgive; it were wicked to forget. For fifty years no American has had such opportunity to serve his country in an hour of need. Never has an American so signally betrayed the trust--not once since Benedict Arnold turned a less ignoble traitor!

Gentlemen, you know the speech of the 7th of March. You know it too well. He proposed to support the fugitive slave bill "with all its provisions, to the fullest extent." At that time this bill of abominations was worse than even now; for then it left the liberty of a man to the discretion not only of any judge or commissioner of any Federal court, but to any clerk or marshal thereof, nay, to any collector of the customs and every one of the seventeen thousand postmasters in the United States! It provided that an affidavit made before any officer empowered, by the United States or any State, to administer oaths, should be taken as conclusive evidence to prove a man a slave! So John Smith of some unknown town in Texas, might make affidavit before John Jones, a justice of peace in the same place, that Lewis Hayden, or Wendell Phillips, or his Honor Judge Curtis, was his (Smith's) slave, and had escaped to Boston: might bring hither John Brown, a Postmaster from Texas, or find some collector of the customs or minion of the court in Massachusetts, seize his victim, and swear away his liberty; and any man might be at once consigned to eternal bondage! All that the bill provided for,--and authorized the kidnapper to employ as many persons as he might think proper to accomplish his purpose by force, at the expense of the United States! All this Mr. Webster volunteered to support "to the fullest extent."

The bill was amended, here bettered, there worsened, and came to the final vote. Gentlemen, the Money Power of the North joined the Slave Power of the South to kidnap men in America after 1850, as it had kidnapped them in Africa before 1808. Out of fifty Senators only twelve said, No; while in the House 109 voted Yea. The Hon. Samuel A. Eliot gave the vote of Beacon and State Streets for kidnapping men on the soil of Boston. The one Massachusetts vote for man-stealing must come from the town which once bore a Franklin and an Adams in her bosom; yes, from under the eaves of John Hancock's house! That one vote was not disgrace enough; his successor [Hon. William Appleton] must take a needless delight in reaffirming the infamy. When the bill passed, Gentlemen, you remember how Mr. Webster rejoiced:--

"Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer,"

was his public outcry on the housetop! And Boston fired a hundred guns of joy! Do you know _who_ fired them? Ask Mr. Attorney Hallett; ask Mr. Justice Curtis. They can "instruct the jury."

Gentlemen, you know the operation of the fugitive slave bill. It subverts the Purposes of the Constitution, it destroys Justice, disturbs domestic Tranquillity, hinders the common Defence and the general Welfare, and annihilates the Blessings of Liberty. It defies the first Principles of the Declaration of Independence,--think of the fugitive slave bill as an appendix to that document! It violates the Idea of Democracy. It contradicts the very substance of the Christian Religion--the two great commandments of Love to God, and Love to man, whereon "hang all the Law and the Prophets." It makes natural humanity a crime; it subjects all the Christian virtues to fine and imprisonment. It is a _lettre de cachet_ against Philanthropy.

Gentlemen of the Jury, you know the fugitive slave bill is unconstitutional. I need not argue the matter; it is too plain to need proof. See how it opposes Justice, the ultimate purpose of human law; nay, the declared objects of the Constitution itself! But yet its unconstitutionality has been most abundantly shown by our own fellow-citizens. I need not go out of Massachusetts for defenders of Justice and Law. You remember the Speeches of Mr. Phillips, Mr. Sewall, Mr. Rantoul, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Mann, the arguments of Mr. Hildreth. The judges before you by nature are able-minded men, both of them; both also learned as lawyers and otherwise well educated,--I love to honor their natural powers, and their acquired learning; would I could offer higher praise. Now, I will not insult their manly understanding with the supposition that either of them ever thought the fugitive slave bill constitutional. No, Gentlemen, it is not possible that in the _personal_ opinion of Mr. Sprague, or even Mr. Curtis, this bill can be held for a constitutional law. But the Court has its official dress: part of it is of silk--or supposed to be,--the gown which decorates the outward figure of the man who wears its ample folds; it is made after a prescribed pattern. But part of it also is made of _opinion_ which hides the ability and learning of the honorable Court. The constitutionality of the fugitive slave bill is a part of the judge's official dress: accordingly, as no federal judge sits without his "silk gown," so none appears without his "opinion" that the fugitive slave bill is constitutional. But if the court should solemnly declare that such was its _personal opinion_--Gentlemen of the Jury, I,--I--should not believe it--any more than if they declared the gown of silk was the natural judicial covering, the actual "true skin" of the judges. No, Gentlemen, these judges are not monsters, not naturally idiotic in their Conscience. This opinion is their official robe, a supplementary cuticle, an artificial epidermis, woven from without, to be thrown off one day, when it shall serve their turn, by political desquamation. Let them wear it; "they have their reward." But you and I, Gentlemen, let us thank God we are not officially barked about with such a leprous elephantiasis as that. You are to judge of its constitutionality for yourselves, not to take the _purchased, official opinion_ of the judge as veil for your Conscience; let it hide the judges' if they like.

Gentlemen, I lack words to describe the fugitive slave bill; its sins outrun my power of speech. But you know the consequences which follow if it be accepted by the People, submitted to, and enforced: the State of Massachusetts is nothing; her courts nothing; her juries nothing; her laws nothing; her Constitution nothing--the Rights of the State are whistled away by the "opinion" of a fugitive slave bill judge, the rights of the citizen--all gone; his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness lies at the mercy of the meanest man whom this Court shall ever make a Commissioner to kidnap men. Yes, Gentlemen of the Jury, you hold your liberty at the mercy of George T. Curtis and Seth J. Thomas! You are the People, "the Country" to determine whether it shall come to this.

You know the motive which led the South to desire this bill,--it was partly pecuniary, the desire to get the work of men and not pay for it; partly political, the desire to establish Slavery at the North. Mr. Toombs is not the only man who wishes the master to sit down with his slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument! You know the motive of the Northern men who supported the bill;--words are idle here!

Gentlemen, I said that Boston fired a hundred jubilant cannon when the fugitive slave bill became a law. It was only a _part of Boston_ that fired them. The bill was odious here to all just and honorable men. Massachusetts hated the bill, and was in no haste to "conquer her prejudices" in favor of Justice, Humanity, and the Christian Religion; she did not like the "disagreeable duty" of making a public profession of practical Atheism. At first the yellow fever of the slave-hunters did not extend much beyond the pavements of Boston and Salem; so pains must be taken to spread the malady. The greatest efforts were made to induce the People to renounce their Christianity, to accept and enforce the wicked measure. The cry was raised, "The Union is in danger:" nobody believed it; they least of all who raised the cry. Some clergymen in the Churches of Commerce were coaxed, wheedled, or bought over, and they declared kidnapping would be imputed unto men for "righteousness." The actual man-stealer in Boston was likened to "faithful Abraham" in the Hebrew mythic tale,--"the rendition of a slave was like the sacrifice of Isaac." One Trinitarian minister, a son of Massachusetts, laid Conscience down before the Juggernaut of the fugitive slave bill, another would send his own mother into Slavery; both had their reward. Editors were brought over to the true faith of kidnapping. Alas, there were some in Boston who needed no conversion; who were always on the side of inhumanity. There were "Union meetings" called to save the Nation; and the meanest men in the great towns came to serve as Redeemers in this Salvation unto kidnapping. Mr. Webster outdid himself in giant efforts--and though old and sick, he wrought with mighty strength. So in the great poem the fallen angel, his Paradise of Virtue lost,--

----"with bold words
Breaking the horrid silence thus began.
'To do aught good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,
As being the contrary to His high will
Whom we resist....
Let us not slip the occasion....
But reassembling our afflicted powers
Consult how we may henceforth most offend
Our enemy; our own loss how repair,
How overcome this dire calamity;
What reinforcement we may gain from hope,
If not what resolution from despair.'"

One class of men needed no change, no stimulation. They were ready to execute this unjust, this unconstitutional Act; their lamps were trimmed and burning, their loins girt about, their feet swift to shed blood. Who were they? Ask Philadelphia, ask New York, ask Boston. Look at this bench. The Federal Courts were as ready to betray justice in 1850 as Kelyng and Jeffreys and Scroggs and the other pliant judges of Charles II. or James II. to support his iniquities. I must speak of this.

* * * * *

(II.) Of the conduct of the Federal Courts.

Gentlemen of the Jury, that you may understand the enormity of the conduct of the federal courts and the peril they bring upon their victims, I must refresh your memory with a few facts.

1. I shall begin with the cases in Pennsylvania. In that State four officials of government have acquired great distinction by their zeal in enslaving men, McAllister, Ingraham, Grier, and Kane; the two first are "Commissioners," the latter two "Judges." In one year they had the glory of kidnapping twenty-six Americans and delivering them over to Slavery. Look at a few cases.

(1.) On the 10th of March, 1851, Hannah Dellam was brought before Judge Kane charged with being a fugitive slave. She was far advanced in pregnancy, hourly expecting to give birth to a child. If a convicted murderess is in that condition, the law delays the execution of its ghastly sentence till the baby is born, whom the gallows orphans soon. The poor negro woman's counsel begged for delay that the child might be born in Pennsylvania and so be free,--a poor boon, but too great for a fugitive slave bill judge to grant. The judge who inherits the name of the first murderer, disgraced the family of Cain; he prolonged his court late into night, that he might send the child into Slavery while in the bowels of its mother! Judge Kane held his "court" and gave his decision in the very building where the Declaration of Independence was signed and published to the world. The memorable bell which summons his court, has for motto on its brazen lips, "Proclaim Liberty throughout the Land, to all the inhabitants thereof."

(2.) The same year Rachel Parker, a free colored girl, was seized in the house of Joseph C. Miller of West-Nottingham, Chester County, by Thomas McCreary of Elkton, Maryland. Mr. Miller pursued the kidnapper and found the girl at Baltimore, and brought a charge of kidnapping against McCreary. But before the matter was decided Mr. Miller was decoyed away and murdered! The man-hunter was set free and the girl kept as a slave, but after long confinement in jail was at last pronounced free--not by the Pennsylvania "judge" but by a Baltimore Jury![175]

[Footnote 175: 20 Anti-Slavery Report, 28 and 21; Ibid. 34.]

(3.) The same year occurred the Christiana Tragedy. Here are the facts.

In Virginia a general law confers a reward of $100 on any man who shall bring back to Virginia a slave that has escaped into another State, and gives him also ten cents for each mile of travel in the chase after a man. Accordingly, beside the officers of the fugitive slave bill courts commissioned for that purpose, there is a body of professional Slave-hunters, who prowl about the borders of Pennsylvania and entrap their prey. In September, 1850, "a colored man, known in the neighborhood around Christiana to be free, was seized and carried away by professional kidnappers, and never afterwards seen by his family." In March, 1851, in the same neighborhood, under the roof of his employer, during the night, another colored man was tied, gagged, and carried away, "marking the road along which he was dragged by his own blood." He was never afterwards heard from. "These and many other acts of a similar kind had so alarmed the neighborhood, that the very name of Kidnapper was sufficient to create a panic."[176]

[Footnote 176: History of the Trial of Castner Hanway and others for Treason (Philadelphia, 1852), 35.]

"On the 11th of September, Edward Gorsuch, of Maryland, his
son, Dickerson Gorsuch, with a party of friends, and a
United States officer named Kline, who bore the warrant of
Commissioner Ingraham, made their appearance in a
neighborhood near Christiana, Lancaster County,
Pennsylvania, in pursuit of a Slave. They lay in wait for
their prey near the house of William Parker, a colored man.
When discovered and challenged, they approached the house,
and Gorsuch demanded his Slave. It was denied that he was
there. High words ensued, and two shots were fired by the
assailants at the house. The alarm was then given by blowing
a horn, and the neighborhood roused. A party of colored men,
from thirty to fifty strong, most of them armed in some way,
were before long on the ground. Castner Hanway and Elijah
Lewis, both white men and Friends, rode up before the
engagement began and endeavored to prevent bloodshed by
persuading both parties to disperse peaceably. Kline, the
Deputy Marshal, ordered them to join the _posse_, which
they, of course, refused to do, but urged upon him the
necessity of withdrawing his men for their own safety. This
he finally did, as far as he personally was concerned, when
satisfied that there was actual danger of bloody resistance.
Gorsuch, however, and his party persisted in their attempt,
and he and two of his party fired on the colored men, who
returned the fire with deadly effect. Gorsuch was killed on
the spot, his son severely, though not mortally, wounded,
and the rest of the party put to flight. The dead and
wounded were cared for by the neighbors, mostly Friends and
Abolitionists. The Slave, for the capture of whom this
enterprise was undertaken, made his escape and reached a
land of safety.

"Judge Grier denounced the act from the Bench as one of
Treason. A party of marines were ordered to the ground to
keep the peace after the battle had been fought and won.
United States Marshal Roberts, Commissioner Ingraham, United
States District Attorney Ashmead, with a strong body of
police, accompanied them, and kept the seat of war under a
kind of martial law for several days. The country was
scoured, houses ransacked, and about thirty arrests made.
Among those arrested were Castner Hanway and Elijah Lewis,
whose only crime had been endeavoring to prevent the
effusion of blood. The prisoners were brought to
Philadelphia, examined before a Commissioner, and committed
on a charge of High Treason. At the next term of the
District Court, under a charge from Judge Kane, the
Grand-Jury found indictments against all of them for this
crime."[177]

[Footnote 177: 20 Anti-Slavery Report, pp. 30, 31.]

Mr. Hanway was brought to trial--for his life, charged with "treason." It appears that this was his overt act.--He was a Quaker, an anti-slavery Quaker, and a "non-resistant;" when he heard of the attack on the colored people, he rode on a sorrel horse to the spot, in his shirt-sleeves, with a broad felt hat on; he advised the colored men not to fire, "For God's sake don't fire;" but when Deputy Marshal Kline ordered him to assist in the kidnapping, he refused and would have nothing to do with it. Some of the colored people fired, and with such effect on the Kidnappers as I have just now shown. It appeared also that Mr. Hanway had said the fugitive slave bill was unconstitutional, and that he would never aid in kidnapping a man--words which I suppose this Honorable Court will consider as a constructive "misdemeanor;" "obstructing an officer."

For this "offence" his case was presented to the grand-jury of the Circuit Court the 29th of September, 1851. Judge Kane charged the jury--laying down the law of treason. Mr. Hanway was indicted for "wickedly devising and intending the peace and tranquillity of the ... United States to disturb;" and that he "wickedly and traitorously did intend to levy war against the said United States." And also that he "with force and arms, maliciously and traitorously did prepare and compose and ... and cause and procure to be prepared and composed, divers books, pamphlets, letters, and declarations, resolutions, addresses, papers, and writings, and did ... maliciously and traitorously publish and disperse ... divers other books ... containing ... incitement, encouragement, and exhortations, to move, induce, and persuade persons held to service in any of the United States ... who had escaped ... to resist, oppose, and prevent, by violence and intimidation, the execution of the said laws, [that is the law for kidnapping their own persons]."

He was brought to trial at Philadelphia, November 24th 1851, before Honorable Judges Kane and Grier, then and subsequently so eminent for their zeal in perverting law and doing judicial iniquity. Gentlemen of the Jury--it is no slander to say this. It is their great glory that in the cause of Slavery they have struck at the first principles of American Democracy, and set at nought the Christian Religion. It is only their panegyric which I pronounce.

On behalf of the government there appeared six persons as prosecuting officers. One United States Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cooper), the Attorney-General of Maryland, the District Attorney of Pennsylvania, the Recorder of the City of Philadelphia, and two members of her bar.[178] For Mr. Webster, then Secretary of State, was highly desirous that Maryland should send her Attorney-General, Hon. Mr. Brent, to help the government of the United States prosecute a Quaker miller, a Non-resistant, for the crime of treason. Hon. James Cooper, the Pennsylvania Senator, also appeared on behalf of Maryland, seeking to convict one of his own constituents! Gentlemen, such conduct carries us back to the time of the Stuarts; but despotism is always the same. It was very proper that the United States government should thus outrage the common decencies of judicial process.

[Footnote 178: History, 55, 57; Report, 19; 2 Wallace.]

This question amongst others was put to each juror:--

"Have you formed an opinion that the law of the United
States, known as the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, is
unconstitutional, so that you cannot for that reason convict
a person indicted for a forcible resistance thereto, if the
facts alleged in the indictment are proved and the court
hold the statute to be constitutional?"

Thus all persons were excluded from the jury who believed this wicked bill a violation of the constitution; and one most important means of the prisoner's legitimate defence was purposely swept away by the court.

Now look at the law as laid down by the government.

Mr. Ashmead, the government's Attorney, said when the Constitution was adopted "Men had not then become wiser than the laws [the laws of England and colonial laws which they were born under and broke away from]; nor had they learned to measure the plain and unambiguous letter of the Constitution by an artificial standard of their own creation [that is the Self-evident Truth that all men have a natural and unalienable Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness]; to obey or disregard it according as it came up to or fell beneath it [as the law was just or unjust]."

"_You will receive the law from the court._" "You _are bound by the instructions which the court may give_ in respect to it;" "_it is in no sense true that you are judges of the law_." "_You must take the interpretation which the court puts upon it._ You have a right to apply the law to the facts, but you have no right to go further."

"The crime charged against this defendant is ... that of _levying war against the United States_. The phrase _levying war_ was long before the adoption of the Constitution, a phrase ... _embracing such a forcible resistance to the laws as that charged against this defendant_ [that is, speaking against the fugitive slave bill and refusing to kidnap a man is 'levying war against the United States']!"

It is treason "if the intention is by force to prevent the execution of _any one ... of the general laws of the United States_, or _to resist_ the exercise of _any legitimate authority of the government_."

"Levying war embraces ... any combination forcibly to prevent or oppose the execution ... of a public statute, if accompanied or followed by an act of forcible opposition." Of course the court is to determine the meaning of _force_; and using the same latitude of construction as in interpreting _levying war_, it would mean, a _word_, a _look_, a _thought_, a _wish_, a _fancy_ even.

Mr. Ludlow enforced the same opinions, relying in part on the old tyrannical decisions of the British courts in the ages of despotism, and on the opinion of Judge Chase--who had derived his law of treason from that source, and was impeached before the American Senate for his oppressive conduct while judge in the very trials whence these iniquitous doctrines were derived! But Mr. Ludlow says "if a _spurious doctrine have been introduced into the common law ... it would require great hardihood in a judge to reject it_." So the jury must accept "a spurious doctrine" as genuine law!

"In treason, all the _participes criminis_ are principals; there are no accessaries to this crime. Every act which ... would render a man an _accessary_ will ... make him a _principal_." "If any man joins and acts with an assembly of people, _his intent is always to be considered ... the same as theirs; the law ... judgeth of the intent by the Fact_." This was Judge Kelyng's "law."

"It may be ... advanced that because Hanway was not armed, he was not guilty. It is perfectly well settled that _arms are not necessary_." "Military weapons ... are not necessary ... to a levying war." "This is the opinion of Judge Chase," and "it may be alleged that Judge Chase was impeached, and that [therefore] his opinions are of little weight. Whatever may have been the grounds of that impeachment, _it is not for us to discuss_."

"If a body of men be assembled for the purpose of effecting a treasonable object [that is, 'to oppose the execution of a public statute,' no matter what or how] _all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action ... are equally traitors_."

Mr. Brent, the Maryland State Attorney, whom Mr. Webster had sent there, declared that "_any combination_ like this, of colored and white persons, _to prevent the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law, is treason_."

Mr. Cooper, the Pennsylvania Senator, adds, "Castner Hanway ... having been present ... at the time the overt act was committed, he is a principal ... provided he was there aiding and abetting the objects of the confederated parties." "_Persons_ procuring, contriving, or _consenting_, come within the words aid and abet." So "_if he_ encourages, _assists, or consents to the act_, it is enough; _he becomes at once an aider and abettor, and obnoxious to all the pains and penalties denounced against it_." "If persons _do assemble themselves_ and act with _some_ force in opposition to _some_ law ... and _hope thereby to get it repealed, this is a levying war and high treason_." That is, an assembly of men acting against any law, with any force of argument, in order to procure its repeal, levies war and is guilty of treason!

To connect Mr. Hanway with this constructive treason, the government relied on the evidence of Mr. Kline, the Deputy Marshal of the court, a man like Mr. Butman and Mr. Patrick Riley, so well known in this court, and so conspicuous for courage and general elevation of character. Witnesses testified that Kline was so much addicted to falsehood that they would not believe him on oath,--but what of that? He had "conquered his prejudices." It appeared that Mr. Hanway went to the scene of action on a sorrel horse, in his shirt-sleeves, with a felt hat on, and did not join the Deputy in attempting to kidnap when commanded. Hear how Mr. Ludlow constructs levying war out of the disobedience of a non-resistant Quaker in a felt hat and shirt-sleeves, mounted on a sorrel horse! Hearken to this voice of the government:--

"Suddenly he sees the assembled band of infuriated men....
Does he leave the spot? No, Sir! Does he restrain the
negroes? Take the evidence for the defence in its fullest
latitude, and you will perceive he raised the feeble cry,
'Don't shoot! for God's sake don't shoot!' and there it
ended. Is that consistent with innocence?... according to
their own evidence the conclusion is irresistible that he
was not innocent."

"But he does more than this." When summoned by the Deputy to steal a man "he is thrown off his guard, and exclaims, 'I will not assist you;' 'he allowed the colored people had a right to defend themselves.' 'He did not care for that Act of Congress or any other Act of Congress.'"

And so with his unsaddled sorrel nag this non-resistant miller levies war upon the United States by crying "Don't fire," and commits treason by the force and arms of a broad-brimmed Quaker hat. "The smallest amount of force is sufficient," "military weapons are not necessary to levy war!"

Mr. Brent thought if Mr. Hanway was not hanged it would appear that a "small and miserable and traitorous faction can resist and annul the laws of the United States." "Put down these factions [the Free-Soil Party, the Liberty Party, the Anti-Slavery Societies], overwhelm them with shame, disgrace, and ruin, or you are not good citizens fulfilling the bonds that bind you to us of the South."

The government Attorney declared that Mr. Hanway and others

"Had no right to refuse to assist because it was repugnant
to their consciences. Conscience! Conscience ... is the
pretended justification for an American citizen to refuse to
execute a law of his country." "_Damnable, treasonable
doctrine._" "He has become a conspirator, he has connected
himself with them, and all their acts are his acts, and all
their intentions are his intentions."

"The whole neighborhood was not only disloyal, but wanting
in common humanity:" "the whole region is infected," "in
_that horde of traitors_;" "a whole county, a whole
township, a whole neighborhood are involved in plotting
treason." "When you see these things _can you not infer ...
that he went there by pre-arrangement_!" "When you see a man
... not saying one word to save his dear colored friends
from the guilt of murder, I say it is passing human
credulity to say that you cannot _infer_ in all that _a
feeling of hostility to the law, and an intention to resist
it_."

"The consequences [of the verdict] are not with the jury:"
the responsibility will not be with you--you are not
responsible for those just consequences."

"When you allege that a master has come into Pennsylvania
and illegally seized and possessed himself of his slave
without process, you are to inquire, 'Has he done that which
he had authority to do in his own State?' You are to look to
the _laws of his own State_; for the Supreme Court
says,[179] 'He _has the same right to repossess his slave
here as in his own State_.'" "He who employs a man said to
have come from Maryland without being satisfied of his
freedom, is himself guilty of the first wrong."

[Footnote 179: 16 Peters, Prigg _v._ Penn.]

Senator Cooper closed for the government. Law was not enough for him; he would have the sanction of "Religion" also. So he read extract from a Sermon. Gentlemen of the Jury, you have not had the benefit of Rev. Dr. Adams's prayers in this court; it is a pity you should not be blessed with the theology of despotism; listen therefore to the "Thanksgiving Sermon" of Rev. Dr. Wadsworth, which Hon. Mr. Cooper read to the Jury in Independence Hall.

"For passing by all other causes of irritation as just now
secondary and subordinate, look for a moment, at the
influence which the Gospel of Christ would have in this
great sectional controversy about slavery.

"First, It would say to the Northern fanatic, who _vapors
about man-stealing_ as if there were no other evil under the
sun but this one evil of Slavery--it would say to him,
Emulate the spirit of your blessed Master and his apostles,
_who, against this very evil_ [man-stealing] in their own
times, _brought no railing accusation_; but in one instance
at least, _sent back a fugitive_ from the household of
Philemon.

"In treating Southern _Christian slaveholders_ with
Christian courtesy, and _sending back their fugitives_ when
apprehended among you, you neither indorse the system nor
partake of its evil; you are only performing in good faith
the agreement, and redeeming the pledges of your
forefathers, and leaving to each man for himself to answer
for his own acts at the judgment-seat of Jesus. It would
tear away from the man, as the foulest cloak of hypocrisy,
that pretence of a religious principle in this whole matter
of political abolitionism.

"Religious principle! Oh my God! That religious principle,
that for the sake of _an abstract right_ whose very exercise
were disastrous to the unprepared bondmen who inherit it,
would tear this blest confederacy in pieces, and deluge
these smiling plains in fraternal blood, and barter the
loftiest freedom that the world ever saw, for the armed
despotism of a great civil warfare! That religious principle
which, in disaster to man's last great experiment, would
fling the whole race back into the gloom of an older
barbarism--rearing out of the ruin of these free homes, the
thrones of a more adamantine despotism--freedom's beacons
all extinguished, and the whole race slaves. That religious
principle through which, losing sight of God's great purpose
of evangelizing the nations, [by American Slavery,] would
shatter the mightiest wheel in the mechanism of salvation,
and palsy the wing of God's preaching angel in its flight
through the skies.

"Alas--alas! ye that count as little this bond of blessed
brotherhood, wrought by our fathers' mighty hands and
bleeding hearts--we tell you, sorrowing and in tears, that
your pretence is foul hypocrisy. Ye have reversed the first
precept of the gospel, for your wisdom is a dove's, and your
harmlessness a serpent's. _Ye have not the first principle
within you either of religion or philanthropy, or common
human benevolence._ Your principle is the principle of Judas
Iscariot, and with the doom of the traitor ye shall go to
your own place."

"No, Sir--no, Sir," concludes the Senator thirsting for his constituent's blood, "'There is no gospel in all this treasonable fanaticism--for treason to my country is rebellion to my God.'"

Judge Grier charged the Jury;--but as _he stuck out from the phonographer's report_--of which the proof-sheets were sent to him--_the most offensive portion_, Gentlemen of the Jury, I shall not be able to enlighten you with all the legal words of this "consummate judge." So be content with the following Elegant Extracts.

"With the exception of a few individuals of perverted
intellect in some small districts or neighborhoods whose
moral atmosphere has been tainted and poisoned by male and
female vagrant lecturers and conventions, no party in
politics, no sect of religion, or any respectable numbers or
character can be found within our borders, who have viewed
with approbation or have looked with any other than feelings
of abhorrence upon this disgraceful tragedy."

"It is not in this Hall of Independence that meetings of
infuriated fanatics and unprincipled demagogues have been
held to counsel a bloody resistance to the laws of the land.
It is not in _this_ city that conventions are held
denouncing the Constitution, the Laws, and the Bible. It is
not _here_ that the pulpit has been desecrated by seditious
exhortations, teaching that theft [a man stealing his own
limbs and person from his 'lawful owner'] is meritorious,
murder [in self-defence killing a man-stealer] excusable,
and treason [opposition to the fugitive slave bill] a
virtue!"

"The guilt of this foul murder [the shooting of a kidnapper
by the men whom he intended for his victims, and whose
premises he invaded without due process of law, and with
armed force], rests not alone on the deluded individuals who
were its immediate perpetrators, but the blood taints with
even deeper dye the skirts of those who promulgated
doctrines subversive of all morality and all government,
[that is, of Slavery and the fugitive slave bill]."

"This murderous tragedy is but the necessary development of
principles and the natural fruit from seed sown by others
whom the arm of the law cannot reach," [such as the Authors
of the Declaration of Independence, and still more the
Author of the "Sermon on the Mount]."

"This [the slave clause of the Constitution] is the Supreme
law of the land, _binding ... on the conscience_ and conduct
of every individual citizen of the United States." "The
shout of disapprobation with which this [the fugitive slave
bill] has been received by some, has been caused ... because
it is an act which can be executed ... the real objection
... is to the Constitution itself, which is supposed to be
void in this particular, from the effect of some 'higher
law.' It is true that the number of persons whose
consciences affect to be governed by such a law [that is the
law of Natural Morality and Religion], is very small. But
there is a much larger number who take up opinions on
trust,--and have concluded this must be a very pernicious
and unjust enactment, for no other reason than because the
others shout their disapprobation with such violence and
vituperation."

"This law is Constitutional." "The question of its
Constitutionality is to be settled by the Courts, [fugitive
slave bill courts,] and not by conventions either of laymen
or ecclesiastics." "_We are as much bound to support this
law as any other._" "The jury should regard the construction
of the Constitution as given them by the court as to what is
the true meaning of the words _levying war_." "In treason
all are principals, and a man may be guilty of aiding and
abetting, though not present."

He spoke of those "associations, or conventions, which occasionally or annually infest the neighboring village of West-Chester, for the purpose of railing at and resisting the Constitution and laws of the land [that is the fugitive slave bill and other laws which annihilate a man's unalienable right to his liberty], and denouncing those who execute them as no better than a Scroggs or a Jeffreys;--who stimulate and exhort poor negroes to the perpetration of offences which they know must bring them to the penitentiary or the gallows."

But he thought refusing to aid the deputy marshal in kidnapping was not an act of levying war, or treason against the United States. "In so doing he is not acting the part of an honest, loyal citizen [who ought to do any wickedness which a bum-bailiff commands]; he may be _liable to be punished for a misdemeanor for his refusal to interfere_."

"But he thought the government was right "in procuring an
indictment for Treason." For "meetings had been held in many
places in the North, denouncing the law, and advising a
traitorous resistance to its execution: conventions of
infuriated fanatics had invited to acts of rebellion; and
even the pulpit had been defiled with furious denunciations
of the law, and exhortations to a rebellious resistance to
it.

"The government was perfectly justified in supposing that
this transaction was but the first overt act of a
treasonable conspiracy, extending over many of the Northern
States, to resist by force of arms the execution of this
article of the Constitution and the laws framed in pursuance
of it. In making these arrests, and having this
investigation, the officers of government have done no more
than their strict duty.

"The activity, zeal, and ability, which have been exhibited
by the learned Attorney of the United States, in endeavoring
to bring to condign punishment the perpetrators of this
gross offence, are deserving of all praise. _It has given
great satisfaction to the Court also, that the learned
Attorney-General of Maryland, and the very able counsel
associated with him_ [Senator Cooper of Pennsylvania] _have
taken part in this prosecution_."

In about fifteen minutes the Jury returned a verdict of "NOT GUILTY."[180]

[Footnote 180: See Report of Trial of Castner Hanway, Phil. 1852.]

* * * * *

(4.) On the 29th of April, 1852, a man named William Smith was arrested by Commissioner McAllister of Columbia, Pennsylvania, on complaint of one Ridgeley of Baltimore. While in the custody of the officers, Smith endeavored to escape, and Ridgeley drew a pistol and shot him dead. The murderer escaped. No serious efforts were made by the State authorities to bring that offender to justice. "He has the same right to repossess his slave here as in his own State;" the same right to kill him if he attempts to escape! Mr. Toombs is modest--but we shall soon see the slaveholder not only sit down with his slaves at the foot of Bunker Hill Monument, but _shoot them if they attempt to run away_! Nay, Gentlemen, we shall see this Court defending the slave-hunter's "privilege."

(5.) Here is another case, Gentlemen of the Jury, in which this same Judge Grier appears, and with his usual humanity. This is a brief account of the case of Daniel Kauffman. In 1852 he allowed a party of fugitive slaves to pass the night in his barn, and gave them food in the morning. For this he was brought before Judge Grier's court and fined $2,800! It was more than his entire property. Gentlemen, there are persons in this room who gave money to Mr. Kauffman, to indemnify him for his losses; were not they also guilty of treason, at least of a "misdemeanor?" They "evinced an express liking" for Freedom and Humanity, not Slavery and bloodshed.

(6.) But here is yet one more,--which you shall have in the language of another:--

"In a case of attempted Slave-catching at Wilkesbarre, in
Pennsylvania, the Deputy Marshal, Wyncoop and his
assistants, had behaved with such atrocious and abominable
cruelty, that the citizens felt that justice demanded their
punishment for the outrage. They were, accordingly, arrested
on a warrant issued by a most respectable magistrate, on the
oath of one of the principal inhabitants of the place. A
writ of habeas corpus was forthwith sued out, returnable
before Judge Grier. When the District Attorney, Ashmead,
moved the discharge of the relators, (which, it is needless
to say, was ordered,) Judge Grier delivered himself to the
following effect. 'If _habeas corpuses_ are to be taken out
after that manner, _I will have an indictment sent to the
United States Grand-Jury against the person who applies for
the writ, or assists in getting it, the lawyer who defends
it, and the sheriff who serves the writ_, to see whether the
United States officers are to be arrested and harassed
whenever they attempt to serve a process of the United
States.'"

2. Gentlemen of the Jury, you might suppose that love of liberty had altogether vanished from the "Free" States, else how could such men ride over the local law as well as natural justice? But I am happy to find one case where the wickedness of the fugitive slave bill courts was resisted by the people and the local judges--it is a solitary case, and occurred in Wisconsin:--

"About the middle of March, 1854, a man named Joshua Glover,
was seized near Racine, in Wisconsin, as a Fugitive Slave.
His arrest was marked by the circumstances of cruelty and
cowardice which seem to be essential to the execution of
this Law above all others. He was brought, chained and
bleeding, to Milwaukee, where he was lodged in jail. As soon
as the news spread, an indignation, as general as it was
righteous, prevailed throughout the city. A public meeting
was forthwith called, and held in the open air, at which
several of the principal citizens assisted. Stirring
speeches were made, and strong resolutions passed, to the
effect that the rights of the man should be asserted and
defended to the utmost. Counsel learned in the law
volunteered, and all necessary process was issued, as well
against the claimant for the assault and battery, as in
behalf of the man restrained of his liberty. A vigilance
committee was appointed to see that Glover was not secretly
hurried off, and the bells were ordered to be rung in case
any such attempt should be made. But the people were not
disposed to trust to the operation of the Slave Law,
administered by United States Judges or Commissioners, and
they stepped in and settled the question for themselves in a
summary manner. A hundred men arrived, in the afternoon,
from Racine, the town from which the man had been kidnapped,
who marched in order to the jail. They were soon reinforced
by multitudes more, and a formal demand was made for the
slave. This being denied, an attack was made upon the door,
which was soon broken in, the man released, and carried back
in triumph to Racine, whence he was afterwards conveyed
beyond the jurisdiction of the star-spangled banner. A mass
convention of the citizens of Wisconsin was afterwards held
to provide for similar cases, should they occur, and a most
sound and healthy tone of feeling appears to have pervaded
that youthful commonwealth.

"After the rescue had been effected, the United States
Marshal arrested several persons for the offence of
resisting an officer in the discharge of his duties. Among
these was Mr. Sherman M. Booth, the editor of the Free
Democrat. When brought before a Commissioner, in the custody
of the Marshal, a writ of habeas corpus was sued out on his
behalf, and he was brought before Judge A.D. Smith, of the
Supreme Court. After a full hearing, Judge Smith granted him
his discharge, on the ground that the fugitive slave law
was unconstitutional. The Marshal then had the proceedings
removed by a writ of certiorari before a full bench of the
Supreme Court, when the decision of Judge Smith was
confirmed, and Mr. Booth discharged from custody.
Immediately afterwards, Judge Miller, of the United States
District Court, issued another warrant for the arrest of Mr.
Booth, making no mention of the fugitive slave act, but
directing his arrest to answer to a charge for abetting the
escape of a prisoner from the custody of the United States
Marshal. Another writ of habeas corpus was sued out, but it
was denied by the Supreme Court, on the ground that there
was nothing on the face of the record to bring it within
range of their former decision."