Viewing page 4 of 263

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Upon this statement of facts the Court had no legal right to bind out the children, and the binding was absolutely void - and Mr. Russell is liable to be indicted. It was a gross outrage, and upon conviction in our Superior Court, he would be suitably punished. Their father can maintain an action for damages against him. 

In reply to my remark that 'if the Court transcend its jurisdiction, the binding would be void without any act of cancellation by your Bureau', you say "but you do not inform me how these children can be restored to their parents." 

Besides the action for damages and the indictment to which Mr. Russell is liable, which would induce him to return them to their parents, it would be the duty of the Courts which bound them, upon a proper representation that these children were living with their parents who were supporting them, to summon him to produce them and to cancel the indentures.- They are also entitled to be brought up before a Judge at Chambers, upon a writ of habeas corpus, and discharged from the custody of Mr. Russell. 

After concluding your narrative of the facts as to the binding of these two children to Mr. Russell, you ask "Is not this a case where discrimination, is made and that too, greatly prejudicial to the colored people and their children? It looks to me like a re-establishment of slavery under the mild

Transcription Notes:
on previous pages of letter [Rupell] is transcribed as Russell