Viewing page 9 of 16

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

February, 1861.    Doughlass' Monthly.   409
[[line]]

[[three columns]]

[[column 1]]

the same, together with a copy of all the testimony taken before him, to the Governor of the Province, in order that a warrant may issue upon the requisition of the proper authorities in the United States, or of any such States, for the surrender of the person charged according to the stipulations of the treaty.' 

Now, it is tolerably clear that the terms of this statue imply a certain correspondence between the laws and ideas of the parties to the treaty. The criminal is only to be apprehended if the charge is made upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the law of the place where the fugitive is found- that is, Canada- would justify: the apprehension. And after the apprehension the justice is not to certify to the Governor unless the evidence be deemed sufficient by law to sustain the charge according to the law of Canada. In other words, the justice is to sit in the place of a Canadian jury, and is to deice, after hearing the evidence, whether he would convict the prisoner according to the law of the country. But these provisions are utterly inapplicable to any such case as that of Anderson. When a jury considers a charge of murder, it is their duty to ascertain whether the killing was malicious or justifiable; but, according to the law of Missouri, Anderson neither had nor could have had any right of self-defence. If, then, the law of Missouri were to govern, the duty of the jury became impossible: a state of society exists in that State which denies black men the right of self-defence- a right inherent in all other creatures, and it is impossible to ascertain whether a man has been guilty of murder unless he enjoys the right of self-defence to protect his liberty. If the law of Canada were to govern, it is obvious that the evidence could not be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge. The truth is, that the parties to the treaty ignored all distinctions between human beings; they treated all men as men. Its terms were neither intended nor are they framed to apply to a class of beings who may commit wrongs, but are without a single right. If Anderson is to be considered a slave, the words of the statute which declare that the evidence must be deemed sufficient by law to sustain the charge according to the law of Canada are unintelligible and inapplicable. In short, the case of a fugitive slave is not within the terms or scope of the treaty. 

The Chief Justice himself, though his opinion is adverse to the prisoner, admits that there must be some correspondence between the laws of Canada and America. He admits that the term 'murder' as defined in the law of Missouri, is not to be taken as the meaning of that term in the treaty. Suppose that by the law of Missouri a master was allowed to put his slave to death, the Chief Justice holds that if a slave were to resist his master, and even to kill him in the struggle, and were then to escape into Canada, he would not be liable to be sent back to the States under the stipulations of the treaty; and yet this might be murder under the laws of Missouri. In like manner, if a treaty similar to that under consideration had been concluded with the Austrian government, could it be maintained that in the case of a political insurrection such men as Kossuth, or Bee, Dembinksi would be liable to be delivered up as murderers, even though according to Austrian law they may have committed that crime? To put another case: suppose that Anderson had possessed a false pass of his master, and that the possession of such a document were held to be forgery according to the law of Missouri, could it be maintained that a demand by the American Government for the rendition of Anderson on the ground of his having committed forgery ought to be complied with? Surely not. It seems, therefore, tolerably clear, that the terms murder, forgery &c., used in the treaty, are not to be interpreted by the law of the State where the crime alleged is committed. These words must be construed by some other standard. The act of Anderson, so far from being an act of malicious killing, was an act of legitimate self-defence, and there is no
[[/column 1]]

[[column 2]]
reason to conclude that the treaty intended to make such an act murder. 

It is said, indeed, that Diggs had authority to stop Anderson, and that Anderson stabbed him whilst in the prosecution of that lawful purpose. No doubt the pursuit was lawful in the State of Missouri, but it was only lawful there because slavery is lawful. So far as the Canadian Judges are concerned, and so far as the terms of the treaty extend, the legality of the pursuit cannot be recognized, because it practically deprives Anderson of this inherent right of liberty and of self-defence. Again, when the certain fate of Anderson is urged as a reason why he should not be surrendered, it is replied: You have no right to assume that justice will not be done in Missouri. It may be so. But there is a perfect right to assume that the law of Missouri differs from the law of England, and that Anderson cannot possibly obtain that justice to which as a man, and not a slave, he would be considered even in Missouri entitled. Let it be observed, that when Anderson crosses the Missouri frontier he will cease to be a man- he will be a chattle- The evidence of the four slaves who pursued him will not be admissible. In short, if rendered up, it is impossible that he should be treated as a being possessing any rights whatever. This alone sufficiently shows that the Ashburton Treaty never was intended to apply to slaves or to be used as the instrument of restoring fugitive slaves to their masters. 

But whatever may be the decision of the Judges in Canada, it is satisfactory to think that the Governor-General is not bound to surrender Anderson. It may be that no direct mode of appeal is provided so as to bring the ease before the Privy Council. But the Governor-General can, of course, refuse to act upon the decision of the Colonial Judges until the Law Officers of the Crown in England have been consulted, and the case has been argued before the Privy Council. It may be that this tribunal will differ in opinion from the Canadian lawyers. If they do, the matter is settled. But even if they do not, the Government may decline to surrender the fugitive. It is impossible to believe that the American Government will feel any annoyance at the British Government for stepping in to protect the life of an unfortunate negro, and, if need be, of amending the stipulation in a badly drawn contract.
[[short line]]

In a recent letter from the Rev. W. King, of Buxton, C. W., alluding to the case of Anderson, he says: – 'Things look rather serious in the United States. The slave power is at the culminating point; but it will not die without a hard struggle.the struggle may be longer than we expect, but it will soon come to an end if all the slave States secede. I hope the North and West will stand firm. Slavery has been trying to extend its power into Canada, in the demand made for the rendition of Anderson by the State of Missouri. But although two of our Judges in the Court of Queen's Bench have decided in favor of the slave power, he will not be given up. The British laws are against it, and British hearts are against it. The meeting lately held in Toronto, and others of a similar kind now holding over the Province, show the disapprobation of the public with the late judicial decision. These meetings speak the British feeling, and tell the minions of the slave power that we will not allow a British Province to be a hunting ground for fugitive slaves, and that Canada will not worship the golden image which they have set up.'
[[line]]

– Since our last issue, five more slave States have seceded from the Union – viz., Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, making, with South Carolina, six states in all.
[[/column 2]]

[[column 3]]
A WHITE CHILD KIDNAPPED FROM NEW YORK AND SOLD INTO SLAVERY – A CURIOUS STORY. – The Natchez (Miss.) Free Trader, of Dec. 12 contains the following statement:

'One day last week a gentleman of this city hailed an up country boat, the Cora Anderson, as she was passing Greenville, Miss., whither he had gone on business, to return home. – Shortly after being underway, our Natchez friend observed a pensive looking little girl, aged about nine or ten years, whose black hair and yellowish brown skin would indicate that she was a mulatto. There was something about her that interested him, and he inquired of the captain concerning her. He was informed that she was a slave belonging to a mass on board, whom the captain pointed out, who said he was taking her to New Orleans to sell her, he having bought her for $160 in Northwestern Missouri, on the borders. Our Natchez friend Ida little girl and the border men so closely as to attract the attention of the latter, with whom he was soon engaged in conversation concerning the child, interrogating him in such manner as to elicit answers not always agreeing with previous statements, and evidently alarming him. This was suspicious. The little girl was taken aside and examined. She said she was an orphan, and had been taken from an asylum in New York by this man: that her hair was light and her complexion brunette; that this man told her he was going to the South with her, where, as his adopted child, she would have a good home; that black hair was preferred in the South, and prettier than hers, and that he had her taken to a barber and had her hair dyed black. He also told her that she would allow him to put some yellow dye on her skin, her complexion would become much whiter in a few days, and that he had put the stain on. On hearing these statements the girl was taken charge of by the captain, and potash, soap and water being applied the dyes were taken off, and the light hair and light complexion brought to light. The pretended master was seized by the excited passengers who were about to deal with him summarily, but it was finally arranged to lock him up in a stateroom until the boat should land. In the meantime, the boat had passed St. Joseph, and went a few miles below that town, rounded to take on wood. At this point, how or in what manner is not known, the ruffian escaped from the boat, leaving his baggage behind. The girl was taken by the captain of the boat to New Orleans, and placed in one of the Orphan Asylums of that city.'
[[line]]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS. – The old Court House at Johnstown has at last resounded with the eloquence of this descendant of the cavaliers of the South and the oppressed African, whose blood intermingles in his veins. The audiences were good, respectable and highly respectful. He treated his subject – 'American Slavery and the brotherhood of man' – we have marked ability, giving those ethnologists who gather their facts and adapt their arguments to meet a foregone conclusion against the Negro, their just due.
     
The principal object of this notice is not so much to glorify Douglass; he dose not needed – nor from a disire to publish our own shame – but in hopes that a plain statement will work the remedy upon the same principle that we would administer medicine to cure disease. It is this: During the first Lecture there was a dumb, but vile and nauseous act committed by some villain in human form, who is perhaps unknown, and may think it probable he will escape exposure and be left to the gnawings of a guilty conscience, and avoid the contempt is mean act would bring upon him if known.

During the second Lecture, the question was pertinently asked: 'is Johnstown a civilized place?' This was admitted – and enlarged upon. The speaker said he had seen much of the world, but here he had met with some of the vilest specimens of humanity. The rabble did not appear to be numerous, but what there was of it was the 'rabblest of the rabble'– altogether taking the pre-eminence in that respect.

Fathers, mothers, families, friends who of you wish to claim the picture? – Who will deny its truth? – Johnstown Independent, 4th.
[[/column 3]]