The Journal of Negro History Volume V Part 52

The affair attracted much attention in the province and opinions differed. While there were exceptions on both sides, it may fairly be said that the conservative and government element reprobated the conduct of the blacks in the strongest terms, being as little fond of mob law as of slavery, and that the radicals including the followers of Mackenzie, looked upon Holmes and Green as martyrs in the cause of liberty. That Holmes and Green and their followers violated the law there is no doubt; but so did Oliver Cromwell, George Washington and John Brown. Every one must decide for himself whether the occasion justified in the courts of Heaven an act which must needs be condemned in the courts of earth.[18]

It was, however, only when the alleged crime was recent and followed up promptly that the rigid rule of extraditing slaves accused of crime was applied. A case which came before the Executive Council a few days after Mosely's is a good ill.u.s.tration of the care taken in such cases.

Jesse Happy, a slave in Kentucky, had made his escape to Canada, stealing a horse with which he outran his pursuers. Knowing the indisposition of the Canadian authorities to return fugitives from slavery, the Governor of Kentucky undertook to have this fugitive extradited on the ground that he was charged with a felony in that commonwealth. It appeared that the real object of the application from Kentucky was not so much to bring Happy to trial for the alleged felony as to reduce him again to a state of slavery. In the report of the Attorney General reference was made to an application for extradition in a case in which the offence had been recently committed, and because of this fact the requisition was honored. In the case of Jesse Happy, however, the alleged offence had been committed four years prior to making an effort to have him extradited.

No process had been issued in the State of Kentucky nor had any steps been taken to punish him for felony. It was suggested, therefore, that the real object of this apprehension was to give him up to his former owners and to deprive him of the personal liberty secured to him by the laws of Canada.

As the delivery of the slave under these circ.u.mstances would subject him to a double penalty, the one of being punished for the crime and the other of being returned to a state of slavery even if he should be acquitted, the Canadian authorities were in a dilemma; for punishment of the felony was in strict accordance with the statutes of Canada whereas the enslavement of the fugitive was in direct opposition to the genius of its inst.i.tutions and the spirit of its laws. Yet as the council[19] could not take the position that because a man happened to be a fugitive slave he should escape the consequences of crime committed in a foreign country to which a free man would be amenable, action was suspended so as to give the accused time to furnish affidavits of the facts set forth in the pet.i.tion on his behalf, and not wishing to make of this a precedent without the support of the highest authority, the matter was submitted to the Government in England with a request for their views upon this case as a matter of general policy.[20]

Lord Palmerston having had the matter brought to his attention by Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, recognized its very great importance. He accordingly had it submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. The opinion of these officers Sir John Campbell and Sir Robert Mousey Rolfe appears from a letter from W.T.H.

Fox Strangeways, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed February 25, 1838, to Sir George Gray of the Colonial Department. This officer said:

"I have received and laid before Viscount Palmerston your Letter to me of the 6 December 1837 with its accompanying copy of a Dispatch from Sir Francis Head, in which that officer requests Instructions for his guidance, in the general case of Fugitive Slaves who, having escaped to Canada may be demanded from the Canadian Authorities by the Authorities of the United States on the plea of their having committed crimes in the last mentioned Country and in the particular case of Jesse Happy, who having escaped to Upper Canada more than four years ago, had been demanded from the Lieut. Governor of that Province, upon the ground of a charge of Horse Stealing.

"These two questions have by direction of Lord Palmerston been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I am directed by his Lordship to state to you the opinion of these officers for the information of Lord Glenelg.

"The Law Officers report upon the general question, that they think that no distinction should in the case contemplated, be made between the demand for Slaves or for Freemen.

"It is the opinion of the Law Officers that in every case in which there is such Evidence of criminality as, according to the terms of the Canadian Statutes, would warrant the apprehension of the accused Party, if the alleged offence had been committed in Canada, then on the requisition of the Governor of the Foreign State, the accused Party ought to be delivered up, without reference to the question as to whether he is or is not a Slave.

"The Law Officers desire however that it should be distinctly understood, that the Evidence for this Purpose must be evidence taken in Canada, upon which (if false) the Parties making it may be indicted for Perjury.

"The Law Officers remark further on this point that the 3rd Section of the Provincial Statute enables the Governor to refuse to deliver up a Party, whenever special circ.u.mstances may render it inexpedient to accede to the demand made to the Governor on such a point.

"The Law Officers, reporting upon the subject of Jesse Happy state that they do not think that there was in that case such evidence of criminality, as, according to the Laws of the Province of Upper Canada would warrant the apprehension of Jesse Happy if the offence charged had been committed in U. Canada.

"The Law Officers indeed go farther, and say that so far as there is any evidence of the Facts, what took place was not Horse Stealing according to the Laws of Upper Canada, but merely an unauthorized use of a horse, without any intention of appropriating it.

"The Law Officers conclude by, stating, that upon these grounds, they are of opinion, that Jesse Happy ought to be set at liberty, and that instructions to that effect should be sent to the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada."[21]

On the ninth of May Glenelg wrote to Sir George Arthur who succeeded Bond Head as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, saying: "With reference to my Dispatch to Sir Francis Bond Head of the 4th December last No 255, I enclose for your information the copy of a letter from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stating the substance of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown in respect to the rest.i.tution of Fugitive Slaves who may be demanded from the Government of Upper Canada on the plea of their having committed crimes at the places from which they have fled. In conformity with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown I have to desire that Jessie Happy, the individual with respect to whom this question was raised shall be forthwith set at liberty."

It is impossible not to see that the very stringent rules laid down by the Law Officers of the Crown at Westminster were intended to be in _favorem libertatis_. Happy was released November 14th, 1837, and so far as appears from the official records no further application was ever made for the extradition of a runaway slave until after 1842.

That year the well-known Ashburton Treaty was concluded[22] between Britain and the United States. This by Article X provides that "the United States and Her Britannic Majesty shall, upon mutual requisitions ... deliver up to justice all persons ... charged with murder, or a.s.sault with intent to commit murder, or piracy or arson or robbery or forgery or the utterance of forged paper...." Power was given to judges and other magistrates to issue warrants of arrest, to hear evidence and if "the evidence be deemed sufficient ... it shall be the duty of the ... judge or magistrate to certify the same to the proper executive authority that a warrant may issue for the surrender of such fugitive."

It will be seen that this treaty made two important changes so far as the United States was concerned. It made it the duty of the executive to order extradition in a proper case and took away the discretion. It gave the courts jurisdiction to determine whether a case was made out for extradition.[23] These changes made it more difficult in many instances for a refugee to escape; but the courts were astute as ever in finding reasons against the return of slaves.

The case of John Anderson is a well-known one in evidence. He was born a slave in Missouri. As his master was Moses Burton, he was known as Jack Burton. He married a slave woman in Howard County, the property of one Brown. In 1853, Burton sold him to one McDonald living some thirty miles away and his new master took him to his plantation. In September 1853 he was seen near the farm of Brown, when apparently he was visiting his wife. A neighbor, Seneca T.P. Diggs, became suspicious of him and questioned him. As his answers were not satisfactory he ordered his four Negro slaves to seize him, according to the law in the State of Missouri. The Negro fled, pursued by Diggs and his slaves. In his attempt to escape the fugitive stabbed Diggs in the breast and Diggs died in a few hours. Effecting his escape to this province, he was in 1860 apprehended in Brant County, where he had been living under the name of John Anderson, and three local justices of the peace committed him under the Ashburton Treaty. A writ of habeas corpus was granted by the Court of Queen's Bench at Toronto, under which the prisoner was brought before the Court of Michaelmas Term of 1860.

The motion was heard by the full court.[24] Much of the argument was on the facts and on the law apart from the form of the papers, but that was hopeless from the beginning. The law and the facts were too clear, although Mr. Justice McLean thought the evidence defective. The case turned on the form of the information and warrant, a somewhat technical and refined point. The Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, and Mr. Justice Burns agreed that the warrant was not strictly correct, but that it could be amended. Mr. Justice McLean thought it could not and should not be amended.

The case attracted great attention throughout the province, especially among the Negro population. On the day on which judgment was to be delivered, a large number of people of color with some whites a.s.sembled in front of Osgoode Hall.[25] While the adverse decision was announced, there were some mutterings of violence but the counsel for the prisoner[26] addressed them seriously and impressively, reminding them "It is the law and we must obey it." The melancholy gathering melted away one by one in sadness and despair.

Anderson was recommitted to the Brantford Jail.[27] The case came to the knowledge of many in England. It was taken up by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society and many persons of more or less note. An application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench of England for a writ of habeas corpus, notwithstanding the Upper Canadian decision, and while Anderson was in jail at Toronto, the court after anxious deliberation granted the writ[28] but it became unnecessary owing to further proceedings in Upper Canada.

In those days the decision of any Court or of any judge in habeas corpus proceedings was not final. An applicant might go from judge to judge, court to court[29] and the last applied to might grant the relief refused by all those previously applied to. A writ of habeas corpus was taken out from the other Common Law Court in Upper Canada, the Court of Common Pleas. This was argued in Hilary Term, 1861, and the court unanimously decided that the warrant of commitment was bad and that the court could not remand the prisoner to have it amended.[30] The prisoner was discharged. No other attempts were made to extradite him or any other escaped slave; and Lincoln's Emanc.i.p.ation Proclamation put an end to any chance of such an attempt being ever repeated.[31]

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The first Fugitive Slave Law was pa.s.sed by the United States in 1793. Three years afterwards occurred an episode, little known and less commented upon, showing very dearly the views of George Washington on the subject of fugitive slaves, at least of those slaves who were his own.

A slave girl of his escaped and made her way to Portsmouth, N. H.; Washington on discovering her place of refuge, wrote concerning her to Joseph Whipple the Collector at Portsmouth, November 28, 1796. The letter is still extant. It is of three full pages and was sold in London in 1877 for ten guineas. (_Magazine of American History_, Vol.

1, December, 1877, p. 759.) Charles Sumner had it in his hands when he made the speech reported in Charles Sumner's _Works_, Vol. III, p.

177. Washington in the letter described the fugitive and particularly expressed the desire of "her mistress" Mrs. Washington for her return to Alexandria. He feared public opinion in New Hampshire for he added.

"I do not mean by this request that such violent measure should be used as would excite a mob or riot which might be the case if she has adherents; or even uneasy sensations in the minds of well disposed citizens. Rather than either of these should happen, I would forego her services altogether and the example also which is of infinite more importance."

In other words if the slave girl has no friends or "adherents" send her back to slavery--if she has and they would actively oppose her return, let her go--and even if it only be that "well-disposed citizens" disapprove of her capture and return let her remain free.

[2] Whitney's first patent was 1784. His rights were firmly established in 1807.

[3] Landon, _Canada's Part in Freeing the Slave_, Ontario Historical Society, Papers, etc. (1919), quoting Birney's _James G. Birney and His Times_, p. 435.

Mr. Landon's paper is of great interest and value and I gladly avail myself of the permission to use it.

[4] A fairly good account of the Underground Railroad will be found in William Still's _Underground Railroad_, Philadelphia, 1872, in W.H.

Mitch.e.l.l's _Underground Railway_, London, 1860; in W.H. Siebert's _Underground Railway_, New York, 1899, and in a number of other works on Slavery. Considerable s.p.a.ce is given the subject in most works on Slavery.

One branch of it ran from a point on the Ohio River, through Ohio and Michigan to Detroit; but there were many divagations, many termini, many stations; Oberlin was one of these. See Dr. A.M. Ross, _Memoirs of a Reformer_, Toronto, 1893, and _Mich. Hist. Coll._, XVII, p. 248.

[5] The Buxton Mission in the County of Kent is well known. The Wilberforce Colony in the County of Middles.e.x was founded by free Negroes but they had in mind to furnish homes for future refugees. See Mr. Fred Landon's account of this settlement in the recent (1918) _Transactions of the London and Middles.e.x Hist. Soc._, pp. 30-44. For an earlier account see A. Steward's _Twenty Years a Slave_ (Rochester, N.Y., 1857).

[6] "The Kingdom of Heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force." There can be no doubt that the Southern Negro looked upon Canada as a paradise. I have heard a colored clergyman of high standing say that of his own personal knowledge dying slaves in the South not infrequently expressed a hope to meet their friends in Canada.

[7] _Souvenirs of the Past_, by William Lewis Baby, Windsor, Ontario, 1896. Mr. Baby is a member of an old French-Canadian family of the highest repute for honor and public service. Charles Baby was the author's brother. The author lived with him and tells the story of his own knowledge. The quotations are from Mr. Baby's book.

[8] As was done in the case of Solomon Mosely, spoken of infra, p.

[9] I have not been able to verify other tales of attempted abduction to my satisfaction, there are, however, several stories which may be true.

[10] _Canadian Archives Sundries, U. C._, 1819.

[11] John Beverley Robinson was the son of Christopher Robinson mentioned above.

[12] The same rule obtained in Lower Canada; (1827) re Joseph Fisher, 1 Stuart's L. C. Rep. 245.

[13] This is the Act (1833), 3 Will IV, c. 7 (U. C.). This statute came forward as cap. 96 in the _Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada_, 1859, but was repealed by an Act of (United) Canada (1860), 23 Vic. c. 91 (Can.).

The Act of 1833 was drawn by Chief Justice Robinson and introduced by him into the Legislative Council of which he was Speaker--it was a "Government measure." Notice of bringing in the bill was given November 28, 1832; the bill brought in November 30; read the second time December 3 pa.s.sed the committee of the whole on the fourth of December and was finally pa.s.sed by the Council the following day. It reached the Legislative a.s.sembly the same day where it was pa.s.sed without opposition and received the Royal a.s.sent February 13, 1833.

[14] At the meeting were present His Excellency Sir John Colborne, K.

C. B. Lieutenant Governor, the Hon. and Rev. John Strachan, D.D., Archdeacon of York, the Honorable Peter Robinson, the Honorable George Herchmer Markland, the Honorable Joseph Fells, and the Honorable John Elmsley. The Executive Council at that time was very much under the influence of the Chief Justice and Dr. Strachan, then Archdeacon afterwards the first Anglican Bishop of York or Toronto.

[15] Robert Sympson Jameson an English barrister of the Middle Temple, a familiar friend of Coleridge and Southey and the husband of Anna Jameson of some literary note.

The report is from the _Canadian Archives, State J._, p. 137.

[16] The Executive Council on September 7th 1837 recommended his extradition. The following is a copy of the Proceedings:

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL CHAMBER AT TORONTO Thursday 7th September 1837