Narrative of Facts in the Case of Passmore Williamson
Author: Unknown
Date: 0101-01-01T00:00:00+00:00

Making of America Books Basic | Boolean | Proximity |

Bibliographic | Search History

UMDL Texts home U of M login View bookbag your bookbag has 0 items

Home Search BrowseHelp

list of all pages | add to bookbag

Title:Narrative of facts in the case of Passmore Williamson.

Availability:These pages may freely searched and displayed.

Permission must be received for subsequent distribution in print or electronically. Please contact umdl-info@umich.edu for more information.

Print Source:Narrative of facts in the case of Passmore Williamson.

24 p. 18 cm.

Philadelphia,

Pub. by the Pennsylvania anti-slavery society, 1855.

Page 1 view page image

Co’ej~ /47 FACTS IN Tll CASF~ fl5m)i~ ~~(4itti~ii~~o~ii+ P III L A 1) E L P II I A: tII} u~~~ 5fIIu~t1inIi~ 5t’itti-~{nUDf~ Ujft~1 No. 31

NoRTH F’IFTIl TREET. SR~HEW & THOMPSON, FF3., MERCHANT 3T., ABO~~

FO~r.TH. iS 55.

Page 2 view page image

Page 3 view page image

NARRATIVI;. John II. Ylieeler, of North Carolina, the accredited Minister of the United States io Nicaragua, arrived in the city of Philadelphia, on his way from Vashington to Nicaragua, on ~Vcdnesday the 18th of July, 1855. lIe brought with him Jane Johnson, a woman whom he had purchased as a slave, some two years before, at Richmond, Virginia, and her two children, both sons, one between 6 and 7, and the other between 11 and 12
years of age. Ilis professed design was to hold them as slaves, not only in the free States of Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, but also in the free country of Nicaragua. Lawyer by profession, and Diplomatist by occupation, he must have been fully aware that none of the States named tolerated the existence of slavery for a moment within their limits, excepting in the case of slaves escaping from oil~er States. lle seems to have relied for immunity upon the respect inspircd by his representative character and upon his personal vigilance in guarding Jane and her children. Upon his arrival at il~e Baltimore Railroad Depot, corner of Broad and Prime streets, in this city, he conveyed them to Bloodgood’s hotel, near Ya]nut street wharf, stopping on the way at the house of a relative. During the two and a half hours of their stay at Bloodgood’s, he lost sight but once of his companions. Jane’s intention to assert her freedom at the earliest opportunity, had been fully formed before starting from the South. She is a remarkably intelligent woman for one wholly without education. Yhen Mr. Wheeler was called to dinner, she feared to move, thinking his eye was upon her. It was well she did so, for in a few minutes he left the dining hall to see whether she was still there; and being satisfied on that point, returne~ to finish a hasty repast. At this time she spoke to a colored woman who was passing, and told her that she was a slave, and to a colored man she said the same thing, afterwards adding, that she wished to be free. An hour afterwards, William Still, an active member of the Vigilance Committee, and clerk at the Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Office, received a note asking him to come down to Bloodgood’s hotel as soon~as possible, as there were three slaves there

Page 4 view page image

4 NARRATIVE OF TUE CASE OF who wantcd liberty, and that their master was with them,on hi~ way to New York. Yith this note in his hand, Mr. Still called upon the Secretary of the Acting Committee of ” The Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and for 1/te llelief of 1’ie J\Tegroes u’ticwfitily Iteld iii Bondc~e, and for improving the condition of the African P~ace.” This Socicty, whose objects are sufficiently indicated by its name, was incorporated by Legi.~lative Act in 17S9 Benjamin Franklin was its first President, and it hos ever since been an efficicnt aid to Freedom in Pennsylvania. Mr. 7iIliamson, the present Secretary, is every way worthy to fill his post. Vell educated, intelligent, of active habits and sound judgment, he has long enjoyed the respect and unlimited confidence of a large circle of acquaintances and friends. Ever active at their important posts, Mr. ~Yilliamson and Mr.

Still ha~tcned to il~e hotel. Mr. Viliiamson, who arrived first, found that the party bad gone on hoard the boat then at the wharf, designing to take tbe five o’clock Camden and Amboy train for New York.Thither he followed them, and found Jane and her children seated upon fle upper deck. lie went up to her and said, “You are the person I am looking for, I presume.” Mr. Yheeler, who was sitting on the same bench, three or four feet from her, asked what Mr. Villiamson wanted with him. The answer was, “Nothing, my business is entirely with this woman.” Amid repeated interruptions from Mr. Vheeler, Mr. Villiamson calmly explained to Jane that she was free under the laws of Pennsylvania, and could either go rith Mr. Vhceler, or enjoy her freedom by going on shore. The conversation between ~~illiamson, Yheeler, Still and a by-stander, was kept up for several minutes, the same ideas being frequently repeated. A few persons gathered about them to hear. Yheeler begged Jane, in the most hurried and earnest manner, to say that she wanted to go with him to her children in Virginia. She made answer that she wanted to see ber children, but she wanted to be free. At last the bell rang, and Mr. Yilliamson, supposing the boat was about to tart, turned to J~ne and said, ” The time has come when you must act; if you wish to exercise your right of freedom, you will have to come ashore immediately.” She looked round at her two children, grasped the hand or arm of the one next her, and attempted to rise from her seat. Vheeler pushed her back, saying, “Now don’t go, Jane.” She renewed her effort to et up, ~nd did so, with the aid of Mr.

~Villiamson. ~Yheeler’s first

Page 5 view page image

PASSMORE WILi~MMSoN. 5 movement had been to push Jane back, but he soon clasped her tightly round the body. Mr. Williamson pulled hini back and held him till she was out of danger from liis grasp. Jane moved steadily fbrwa~d towards the stairway leading to the lower deck. It was at the head of the stairway, if we may believe Mr. Wheeler, that he was seized by two colored men and threatened by one of them; but the most careful and repeated examination of witnesses has failed to elicit any testimony to a threat except one made on the lower deck. She was led di~wn the stairs of the boat and her children picked up and carried after her; one ofthem cried vociferously. She and her children were conducted ashore, and put into a carriage, and, amid the huzzas of the spectators, were driven off to a place of safety. There was a crowd of persons, including some police officers, on and about the boat at the time, but no one offered any resistance. All seemed to regard it as a work proper to be done, and to approve of the manner in which it was executed. Mr. Williamson behaved very judiciously in the affair, and discharged the duty imposed on liim, by his office, in a manner becoming its importance. To the threats of Mr.

Wheeler, he replied by giving him his card, indicating where he was to be found, if wanted, and saying that he would be responsible for the legal con sequences of his action. In order to judge respecting the legal consequences or ~haracter of Passniore Williamson’s action in this case, it is necessary to recall certain facts in the legislation of Pennsylvania. On the 1st of March, 1780, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an Act providing for the gradual abolition of Slavery within the State. The ftllowing is the Preamble of that Act: “When we contemplate our abhorrence of that condition to which the arms and tyranny of Great Britain were exerted to reduce us, when we look back on the variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, and how miraculously our wants in many instances have been supplied, and our deliverances wrought, when even hope and human fortitude have become unequM to the conflict, we are unavoidably led to a serious and grateful sense of the manifold blessings, which we have undeservedly received from the hand of that Being, from whom every good and perfect gift cometh. impressed with these ideas, we conceive that it is our duty, and we rejoice that it is in our power, to extend a portion of that freedo,n to others which bath been extended to us, and release them from that state of thraidron to which we ourselves were tyranically doomed, and from which we have now every prospect of being delivered. it is not for us to en

Page 6 view page image

6 NARRATIVE OF THE CASE OF quire why, in the creation of mankind, the inhabitants of the several parts of the earth were distinguished by the difference in feature or complexion. It is sufficient to know that all are the work of an Almighty Hand. We find, in the distribution of the human species, that the most fertile as well as the most barren parts of the earth are inhabited by men of complexions different from ours, and from each other; from whence we may reasonably, as well as religiously, infer, that He who placed them in their various situations, hath extended equally his care and protection to all, and that it becometh not us to counteract his mercies. We esteem it a peculiar blessing granted to us, that we are enabled this day to add one more step to universal civilization, by removing, as much as possible, the sorrows of those who have lived in undeserved bosdage, and from which, by the assumed authority of the Kings of Great Britain, no effectual legal relief could be obtained. Weaned by a long course of experience from those narrow prejudices and partialities we had imbibed, we find our hearts enlarged with kindness and benevolence towards men of all conditions and nations; and we conceive ourselves at this particular period extraordinarily called upon by the blessings which we have received, to manifest the sincerity of our profession, and to give a substantial proof of our gratitude. “II. And whereas, the condition of those persons who have heretofore been denominated ~egro and Mulafto slaves, has been attended with circumstances, which not only deprived them of the common blessing that they were by nature entitled to, but has cast them into the deepest afflictions by an unnatural separation and sale of husband and wife from each other and from their children, an injury, the greatness of which can only be conceived by supposing that we were in the same unhappy case. In justice, therefore, to persons so unhappily circumstanced, and who, having ne prospect before them whereon they may rest their sorrows and their hopes, have no reasonable inducement to render their services to society, which they otherwise might, and also in grateful commemoration of our own happy deliverance from that state of unconditional subrnission to which we were doomed by the tyranny of Britain: “111. Be it enacted, and it is hereby enacted,” &c. This Act declares that “no man or wom~n of any nation or color,” (excepting the slaves thcn living in the State and registered as required by law,) “shall at any time hereafter be deemed, adjudged or holden, within the territories of this commonwealth, as slaves or servants for life, but as free men and free women, except the domestic slaves attending upon delegates in Congress from the other American States, foreign ministers and consuls, and persons passing through

Page 7 view page image

PASSM0R~ WILLIA~~O~. ( and sojourning in this State, and not becoming residents therein, and seamen employed in ships not belonging to any inhabitant of this State, nor employed in any ship owned l}y any such inhabitant: Provided, Such domestic slaves shall not be alienated nor sold to any inhabitant, nor (except in the casc of members of Congress, roreigo ministers and cor~s~ls) retained in this State longer than SiX month..” On il~e 3d of March, 1847, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passe4 a statute, repealing this permission to hold slaves even tsnaporarilyin this State.

The language of the statute is as follows: So much of the Act of the General Assembly, entitled`An Act for the gradual aholition of Slavery,’

passed the tat day of March, 1780, as aothorizes the masters or owners of slaves to bring or retain such slaves within this commonwealth, for the period of six months, in involuntary servitude, or for any period of time whatsoever, and so much of said act as pre~~ents a slave from giving testimony against any person whatsoever, s and the same is hereby repealed.” Thus was freedom established as the rule for the Courts, absolute and nnlimitcd, in all cases of slaves brought into the State by their owners. The Pennsylvania law on iliis subject is given with great learness in 1549, by the Supreme Court, in Kafl~a~ vs. Oliver, 10

Barr’s Reports: “The principle sprung fresh, and beautiful, and perfect from the`aind of Lord Manstiel~l, in the grcat case of the negro Somerset, that, by the common law, n slave, of whatever country or color, the momeat he was on English groand, became free-endowed with the sanctity of reason.

This case was decided before the revolution, and became the common law of this State, always savin~ and excepting the inroad of the compact an~
compromise. This action, then, professes to be fbuoded on the principles of the common law; but by the principles of law, the fugitives were free the n”meot svI~en they t~ucheJ the soi~ of Peunsylvania. All the incidents, accompaniments and attributes of bondage fell from around them.” Immediately after he had been left by his travelling companions Mr.

~~beeler sought the potential aqaistance of Jeha K. Kane, Judge of the District Court of the United States. It seems to have bean decided by these gentlemen that a warrant, under the Fugitive Slav. Act, could not be sustained-that warrant applying only to cases of `slaves escaping from another State into Pennsylvania. The ingenious devi~e was hit upon of rmaking the writ @f lIabeas Corpus~that

Page 8 view page image

NAllfl~~lvK OF Tit? ~~~~ OF gIorio~is old bulwark of personal libert~-an instrument for getting po~scssi()n of tlio niotl~er.~nd lie children. ~Ir.

~Vheeler rnade the ibllo’ving aflidavit `1To the Llonorable John k. Kane, Judge of the District Court of the 1Jul ted States, in and for the I’astern District of Penusytrania: “The petition of John If. Wheeler respectfully represents That your petitioner is lIte o,fler of three persona held to labor by the laws ol the State of Virginia, said persons being respectively iiamed Jane, aged about years, Daniel, aged aboit 12
years, anil Isaiah, aged about 7 years, liersous of color; and that they are detained from the possession of your lietitioner by one I~assinore Williamson, resident of the city of Phtladelpliia, and that they are not detainesi for any criminal or Supposed criminal matter. `1Your petitioner therefore prays your Honor to grant a writ of habeas corpus to b~ directed to the said Passmore Williamson, commanding him to bring l~efore your Honor the bodies of the said Jane; Daniel and Thaiab, to do and abide such order as your Honor may direct. [Signed] Jo~s’ H. Wia~~LER.” “Sworn to and subscribed; July 18,1855. CR~s. F. H~AzLiTT, U. S. Corn.” It will be observed that the benefit of the writ is not solicited in Iiebalf r Jane aiid lier children; Mr. Vhecler does not allege that they are his wife, children, or wards, but that they are slaves ho does not bring ilic case within the Fugitive Slave Act, by asserting their escape from another State into Pennsylvania, but rests his elaim upon tlie naked fact that fliey are his slaves by Virginia law. Instead of promi)tly rejecting this upplieat~on, on the ground of want ofjurisdiction, Judge Kane granted the writ, returnable on il~e 18th instant, the next day, at 3 o’clock. All the facts-the sudden departure of Jane, tlie visit of Mr. Vlicelcr to Judge Iane, the affidavit, the application, the granting and issuing of the writ-seem to have been crowded into an incredibly short space of time after five o’i~loek P. M. on the “f 18th. On the 19th, a I)cputy Marshal made aflidavit that he had served thu writ at tlio residence of Passrnore Yilliamson. This was a mistake, as lie bad served it at tlie residence of liis father, corner of Seventh and Arch streets. On it.’ discovery tlie affidavit was, changed in accordance with the fact. An alias writ was issued, re-6,‘turnable at 10 o’clock, A. M. on the 20tl. Mr.

Villianison, though under no legal obligation to obey or, to f:,” notice a writ thus illegally issued, made the following return:

Page 9 view page image

PASSMOR~ WILLIAMSON. “To the Honorable J. K. Kane, the Judge within named: Pasamore Williamson, the defendant in the within writ mentioned, for return thereto respectfully submits, that the within named Jane, Daniel, and Isalab, or by whatsoever names they may be called, nor either of them, are not now, nor were at the time of issuing the said writ, or the original writ, or at cay ctAer time, in the custody, power, or possession of, nor confined, nor restrained their liberty by him, the saij Passmore Williamson. Therefore lie cannot have the bodies of the said Jane, Daniel and Isaiah, or either of them, before your Honor, as by the said writ he is commanded. (Signed,) P. WiLLIAMSON. The above named Passmore Williamson, being duly affirmed, says that the facts set forth in the above return are true. (Signed,) P. WILLIAMsON. Affirmed and subscribed before me, this 20th day of July, A. D., 1855. (Signed,) Cii AS. F.

lia~z~avv, U. S. CommisiTheer.” The return is in the ordinary form, with the addition of the words in italics. Mr. Yandyke, the United States District Attorney and counsel for Mr. Vheeler, objected to the return as insufficient and untrue. Mr. Yilliamson S counsel contended that the return was complete, that it was not competent to go behind it, and that if the charge of untruth were brought, it should be made the subject of another hearing and of a separate and substantial allegation. Judge Kane smd that the testimony offered by Mr. Vandyke should be admitted, and might be such as to make out a prima facie case of perjury, in which event it might be his duty as commitfing magistrate to bind Pasamore ~Villiamson over for perjury. This-revelation of the feelings of the Judge changed in a moment the whole aspect of the ease. The Judge bad become the prosecutor, and before hearing evidence bad allowed bis feelings to betray him into a violation of the decency of the Bench, and an outrage upon the personal character of one of the most respectable of our citizens. Mr.

~~.`s counsel asked for time to examine the ease and prepare a proper defense, which was refused by J~idge Kane, unless the per sons named in the writ were brought into Court. Mr. Yandyko moved f\,r an attachment against Pasamore Yilliamson for contempt, and that he be held to answer a charge of perjury. Mr. ~., took the st~nd, and, under affirmation, made a full and clear statement of the whole transaction, so fir as his knowledge of it, and connection with it, extended. Ilis counsel, at the opening, stated that they rested their case upon the fact of entire negatioii of possission, and were 1* S’

Page 10 view page image

10 NARRATIVE OF TIlE ASE OF ready to amend the return in any manner directed by the Court, compatible with iliat position. But at this stage of the proceedings, they declined an argument, submitting the case to the judgment of the Court. Judge Kane said that in view of the gravity of the ease, he would take time to consider it, and in the mean time, the respondent must enter bail, in the sum of 5OOO, for his appearance on Friday morning, the 27th of July, to answer the charge of perjury; that the motioii in relation to contempt would go over till that day, when he would deliver his written opinion on t~e whole subject. lle added, that “he would also say, at the risk of being considered extra judicial, that if it is really in the power of the defendant to produce the bo~lies of the three persons, it would be better for him to do so,” thus leaving little room to doubt that his foregone determination had been to obtain Jane and her children, for the purpose of their re-enslavement, or, failing to do that, to inflict vengeance on the man who bad enabled thi~m to assert their legal rights. These proceedings occupied little time.

Nothing further was done until the morning of tlie 27th, when the Judge took his seat upon the Bench, and, to the surprise of the counsel, abandoned the charge of perjury, and committed the prisoner flir contempt.

Probably, during the week in which he considered tlie case, visions of a jury came between him and the man whom lie would willingly condemn for perjury, and therefore he chose to construct a case where this troublesome element of American jurisprudence would not interfere with his plans. And thus was an innocent citizen sentenced to indefinite imprisonment, without a hearing, without a trial, without the verdict of ajury of his peers, after having been l~row~beaten and charged with crime of a deep dye, by a Judge who should have presumed him innocent until he was proved guilty.

The decision deli~~ered by Judge Kane on this occasion is perhaps the most remarkable legal document of our times. It will certainly be regarded as a barbarism of the nineteenth century, should it be preserved for the criticism of a wiser aiid better generation. Among its monstrous features it is difficult to decide whether it is most strongly marked by its pervcrrion of the facts, its quibbling ingenuity on the question of constructive custody, or the arrog:~nce with which it nullifies the statute law of Pennsylvania.. It is wholly liased on a double falsehood, viz: that Jane Johnson did not desire her freedom and was fi~reibly abducted by Passmore ~Villiamson. It asserts facts in contradiction to the plainest testimony of respectable witnesses, and even contradicts the statement of the Judge’s friend,

Page 11 view page image

PAS~MORE WILLIAM~ON. 11 ~~r YheeIer. It represents Passmore Yilliamson a~ heading a riotous mob, the object of which was “to efrect Ike ubd~~cITh~~ ani iq~ prisonmenl” of unoffending citizens. It insists that Jane Johnson and her children werc within his custody and eontro’l because he told the woman that she was free by Pennsylvania law, and offered to lead her off the boat if she desired to go. Not tho~least remarkable passage in this strange document is the fbllowing: “The cause was submitted to me by the learned counsel for the respondent without argument, and 1 have therefore Thuad myself at some loss to understand tbe grounds on which, if there he any such, they would claim the discharge of their client.” The reader who recolleets that Judge Kane`~ej~tseJ lo alThw I/te eonnsel ti~nefrrprepa~‘aIionfot Ute arjc’tntettl, though he took a week to prepare his decision, will not hesitate to characterize this statensent as an insult to Ir. Villiamson and to his counsel.

Another~stnking point is the profession of ignorance, on tlse part of its author, respecting Pennsylvania law. lie says that he knows “of no statute of Pennsylvania which affects to divest the riglst of pr)perty of a citizen of North Carolina, acquired a”d asserted under the laws of that State, because he had found it needful or convenient to pass through the territory of Pennsylva~sia.” By this circunslo cution he means that he knows of no law in force in Pennsylvania which would deprive`t slaveholder of his power to hold his slaves on her soil, after he had voluntarily brought them hither on his passage to another place. If this is not his meaning, liis remark is irrelevant to his argument. Such a defence of his course is, certainly, made at an expense of his reputation for legal knowledge which one would scarcely have expected in a lawyer and judge.

Yet, in the very next sentence, he incautiously permits the truth to appear that, after all, he has some idea of ilse existence of such a law, by expressing lsis doubt of its recognized validity by a United States Court. Vhat is thi but an insult to Pennsylvania-an intimation that, as a soverei~n State, she has no right to determine whether or not slavery sh~ll be transplanted by Southern masters to her own soil, ad the la~~s of Virginia be dominant here. Again, il~is lawdef)ingJudge says tl~at he waives the inquiry whether, for the purposes of tlsis question, they (Jane Johnson and her children) were in the territorial jurisdictios~ of Pennsylvania, while passing frons one State to anoil~er, upon il~e navigable waters of the United States;” but adds, that his first impressions, upon this point, are adverse to th~ argumesit. One nsigl~t

Page 12 view page image

12 NARRATIVE OF TllE ~~~SE OF fairly infer from this clause that Judge Kane lind not the slightest idea that these persons h~~d ever set foot on Pennsylvania soil; notwithstanding Vheeler’s statement before the Court, that they spent some hours at Bloodgood’s Hotel, in Yalnut street, and notwithstandlug the fact, well known to tl~e Judge, that their route from Vashing ton to New York iQY through the heait of the City of Philadelphia. And ile ufterer of these contemptible quibbles dares to charge Passmore Villiamsen with flilsehood and evasion, and to read to his auditors a homily on the importance of speaking “full, direct, and unequivocal, truth. After ti’e deeision was pronounced, Mr. Villia~~~son 5 counsel, Hon. ChaMes Gilpin, rose and addressed the Court in some remarks preliminary t&) a motion which he ii~tended to make. lie liad contended that Villiamson liad not possession or custody of the persons whom he was commanded to produce, and he now suggested that the ret’irn slonld be amended to express this, in a nanner confermatory to the views of the C~~urt. TY/tile 1~ wa~ s~aking, Mr. Vandyke rose “ind moved that a commitment, under tite soal of the Court, be issucd, and the defendant, Passmore Villiamson, be placed in the custody of tho Marshal. Mr. Gilpin prceeded, when Judge Kane remarked that il~e District Attorney had precedence, and that any motion of defendant’s counsel must be reduced to writing. Mr. Gilpin was about to reply to the niotion ef the District Attorney, saying that it had not been reduced to writing, when the Judge announced that it had been already granted. Such conduct on the part of ajudicial officer needs no comm(nt. ~Vhile these scenes, so disgraceful to Pennsylvania, were transpiring in the city of Philadelphia, another plot of the minions of slavery was ist process of execution. On the 19th of July, Ir. Vheeler entered c~~mplaint before James B. Free m an, Alderman, wl~o issued a warrant for the arrest of is:tiah Moore, ~Ym.

Custis, John Ballard, James Martin, and James S. Braddock, (colored men.) They were arrested and thrown into the “lock up” of a station. house, where they were left until the afternoon of the next day, suf fering from intense lent, without food, and without permission to see their friends.

They were then brought before the magistrate, cxbausted with fatigue, want of sleep, excitement and hunger, and beld to bail in the excessive sum of $7000 each, to answer to the charges of highway robbery! inciting to riot!

riot! and assault and battery. In default of bail, they were committed to prison. Passmore ~Yilliamson was also arrested on the last three charges.

Page 13 view page image

ASSMORE WILLIAMSON. 13 He had a hearing before Alderman Freeman, and was held to answer in the suni of $6000. On the 28th of July, Isaiah Moore, Ym. Custis, John Ballard, James Martin, and James S. Braddock were brought before Judge KeIlny, on a writ of habeas corpus, and an application made for reduction of bail. Mr. Vheeler was again present, and testified against them. District Attorney Mann abandoned at once the charge of highway robbery, characterizing it as “absurd,” and again as “ridiculous.” Judge I&elley, after inflicting a reprimand upon the Alderman, reduced the bail to $1000, in the cases of Ballard and Custis, and $500 in the others. On the 7th of August, Mr. Thceler went before the Grand Jury. The result was an indictment for riot and assault and b’attery against these five persons, and also against Passmore Villiamson, and Vifliam Still, the well-known clerk at the Anti-Slavery office. The case was called for hearing on the 9th inst., but the parties, not being ready for trial, showed cause fi~r a continuance, which was granted. On Yednesday morning, August 29th, they were all, excepting Passmore ~illiamson, put upon their trial, upon the charge of riot and assault and battery, in the (~ourt of Quarter Sessions, in the city of Philadelphia, Judge Kel ley presiding. Vheeler appeared as tliu principal witness against fle defendants. Ilis testimony was substantially the same ihat lie gave before Judge Kane. lIe swore that tlie “defendants came on board the boat, headed k~ Mr. Williamson that Williamson, and the defendant, Still, talked to the woman Jane, and endeavored to persuade her to go off il~e boat; both Still arid Williamson telling her that she was free and urging her to go ashore; slie was asked by them if she did not wish to be free; she replied that sh~ did, but did not want to leavelter master; during tlie ringing of the last bell, s1~e was seized aiid carried down O~e gangway aid on s1io~~e; il)e two children were also seized and carried after her by tlie defendants.” On the cross-examination he said he did not remember whether he told her on the boat that she was free to go if she wished; but he declared that he “ii ad said so before, had always felt so; did not want to have any one aliout him who did not wish to stay; had exercised no restraint or control over her; she knew perfectly well where she was going, and was satisfied to go.” Believing that all the persons who could contradict their testimony were included in the indictment, Wheeler and the other witnesses

Page 14 view page image

14 NA~llATIVE OF TUE CASE OF for the prosecution were emboldened to swear in the strongest man ncr to such points as they thought could not fail to secure a convic tion. There amazement and confusion can be better conceived than described, when Jane Johnson suddenly appeared on the witnes~~ stand. 11cr testimony utterly destroyed that of Ir. Wheeler and Lis witnesses. It was as follows: “I can’t tell my exact age; I guess I am about 25; I was born in Washington City; lived there this New-Year’s if I shall live to see it, two years; I came to Philadelphia about two months ago. I came with Col. Wheeler; I brought my two children, ene aged 10, and the other a year or so younger; we went to Mr. Sully’s and got something to eat; we then went to the wharf then into the hotel. Col. Wheeler told me to stay on the apper porch and did not let me go to dinner, and sent by the servants some dinner to me but I did not desire any; after dinner he asked me if I had dinner; I told him I wanted none; while he was at dinner I saw a colored womn and went to her and told her I was a slave woman traveling with a very curious gentleman, who did not want me to have anything to de or say to colored persons; she said she was sorry for me; I said nothing more; then I went back and took my seat where I had been ordered by Col. Wheeler; ite had told me not to talk to colored persons; to tell everybody I was tr~Lveling with a minister going to Nicaragua; he seemed to think I might be l:~d off he did not tell me I could be free if I wanted to when I got to Phfl~ deiphia; on the boat he said he would give me my freedom; he nev’r said so before; I had made preparations before leaving Washington to get my freedom in New York; I made a suit to disguise myself in-they had never seen me wear it-to escape in when~I got to New York; Mr. heeler has that suit in his possession, in my trunk; I wasn’t willing to come without my children for I wanted to free them; I have been in Col. Wheeler’s family nearly two years; he bought me from a gentleman of Richmond-a Mr. Crew; he was not a member of Col. Wheeler’s family; Col. Wheeler was not more than half an hour at dinner; he came to look at me from the dinner-table, and found me where he had left me I did not ask leave of absence at Bloodgood’s Hotel; while Co1. Wheeler went on board the boat a colored man asked me did I want to go with Col. W.; I told him “No, I do not” at o’clock that night he said he would touch the telegraph for me and some one would meet me at New York; I said I was obliged to him; no more was said then; I bad never seen the man before; when Col. Wheeler took me on hoard he took me on the upper deck and sat us down alongide of him. While sitting there I saw a colored man and a white one; the white man beckoned

Page 15 view page image

ASSMOttF WILLTAMsON. me to come to him; the colored man asked did I desire my freedom; the white man approached Mr. W. and said he desired to tell me my rights; Mr. W. said, “My woman knows her rights;” they told me to go with them; he held out his hand hut did not touch mine, and I immediately arose to go with him;I took my oldest boy by the hand; the youngest was picked up by some people and became very much alarmed, and I proceeded off the boat as quickly as I could, being perfectly willing and desirous to go; Mr. Wheeler ted to stop me, no one else; he tried to get before me as though he wanted to talk to me;I wanted to get off the boat, and didn’t listen to what he had to say. I did not say I did not want my freedom; I have always wanted it; I did not say I wanted to go with my master; I went very willingly to the carriage, I was very glad to go; the little boy said he wanted to go to his massa, he was frightened; I did not say I wanted to go to Col. Wheeler; there was no outcry of any kind, my little boy made all the noise that was made.” The presentation of Jane as a witness, in tl’e Courtroom, was a bold and perilous act on the part of her friends, and one in wl~ich they would not have felt justified, had they not been assured that a strong force should be provided for her protection by the State authorities. Although il~ey had this assurance, serious apprehensions were felt for the result. The United States officers were there with nn extra force, evidently determined to arrest her. The officers of tlie Court and other St~te officers were there to protect the witness and vindicate the laws of the State. Yandyke, the United State~

Distriot Attorney, swore he would take her. The State officers swore he should not, and for awhile it seemed il~at nothing could avert a bloody scene. It was expected that the conflict would take place outside of tlie door when she should leave the room, so that when she and her friends went out, and for some time after, the most intense anxiety pervaded the Court-Room. The way to the carriage was lined by a strong body of policemen, placed there by order of District Attorney i~ann and Judge KelIcy. The courage of Yandyke and his allies seemed to pale before the stern determination of Judge Kelley ned District Attorney Mann, to vindicate the dignity of the Cohrts and to cnf~rce the laws of Pennsylvnnia, ned Jane Johnson entered the carriage which was in waiting for her witho,‘t disturbance. She was accompanied by an intrepid police officer, and tlie carriage was borne away in safety, and State sovereignty triumphed over the insolent invasion of usurped authority on the part of Federal officers.

Page 16 view page image

iG NARRATtVE OF THE ASE OF Judge Kelley, in his charge to the Jury, a document honoraNe to him as a man and as a judge, explicitly asserted “that wIen Col. Vheeler and his servants crossed the border of Pennsylvania, Jane Johnson and her two sons became as free as he.” Thejury returned a verdict of “not guilty” as to all the parties on the count charging them with riot. On the second count, charging them ith an assault upon Ccl. Vheder, Ballard and Custis wore found ” guilty “-the rest “not guilty.’ Ballard and Custis weic sentenced by Judge KeIley to pay a fine of tea dollars each and the costs of prosecution, and to be imprisoned during one week. ~Ieasores were taken to relieve these unfortunate men, who were doubtless sufferers from perjury, of the pecuniary part of their burden. Thus ended one act of this strange drama.

~Yhea Passmore Villiamson was committed to prison, every Ieariied and upright lawyer, of our city, and every citizen capable of appreciating and respecting the rights and true liberties of the people uider a free government, was shocked and alarmed by the outrage upon the plainest principle of law and of justice, of which Judge Kane had been guilty. But the people of Pennsylvania never imagined that a sovereign State was impotent to redress the wrong, and to protect against judicial error, folly, or wickedness, the personal liberty of her own citizens. Their il~ougbts instantly and naturally turned to the 1~abeas corj)?(S; that dear.bought right of a free people, that sacred palladium of their liberty, in which our nation glories. To this Passmore ViIliamson might co iifidently appeal. The aid of this he iight demand, by undoubted right. lle did demand it. Application was made by his counsel to Chief Jusiice Lewis, of the Suprenie Court of Pennsylvania, for a writ of 1~a beas corpus, with a view to his liberation if the commitment of Judge Kane should be found to be illegal. Judge Lewis, il~oogh bound, by viitue of his office, to issue this writ upon such application, assumed the responsibility of refusing to do so, on the ground that one Court should yield to another the respectwhieh it claiuis for its own adjudications!

Failing to obtain justice where it should have been promptly awarded him, Ir. Villiamson, by his counsel, renewed his application to-the Supremo Court in ban~ sitting at Bedford on the 13th of August. Ilis application was fully and ably argued l~y Messrs. Charles Gilpin and ~Vm. M. Meredith.

These gentlemen ass’~rted the petitioI~er’s right to the writ, and earnestly protested against

Page 17 view page image

PAsSMORI: ~V1LL1AMSON. 17 being called upon to argue the qi0estion, in face of the imperative requisition of the act of 1785 that the writ shall be issued upon such petition, and its imposition of a penalty upon any Judge who shall refuse to award it. Ir. Icredith concluded his eloquent and impressive argument with the following language: “As regards the proceedings of the District Court, I have argued the question of jurisdiction only. The errors in law in other respects of these proceedings I shall not enter npnn. The odd use of the writ of lIabeas Corpus in applying it to the purpose of depriving a party of liberty, instead of restoring it -the allowing a traverse of the return which can only be allowed by statute, and wtich no statute allows in the Courts of the United States-the taking`that traverse by parol merely-the assumlug to decide upon it the fact of abduction upon insufficient evidence and from that to deduce a continuance of custody on no evidence at allthe absolute inconsistency of the record, ~hich, after setting out a full complete, and unevasive return, proceeds to a commitment. for a supposed refusal to make any retnrn,-I do not know that all these and other errors would of themselres enable this Court to interfere, if the District Court had jurisdiction of the case. I3ut as the Court had no jurisdiction, these circumstances, all of them operating oppressively on a citizen entitled to your protection, do greatly aggravate the case, and enhance, if that be possible, your just ebligation to relieve him. They do indeed tend to show a want of jurisdiction, for surely Providence would never have permitted a Court of competent jurisdiction to fall into so many errors in one case.”.. “I now leave the matter in the hands of the Court. It is impossible to conceal from ourselves the fact that the essential rights of this Commonwealth are invaded. This condition of things is inauspicious.

To correct it, nothing is wanted but the firm and temperate discharge of your duties as magistrates and ministers of the law.” “The question here has nothi~g to do with the rights or wrongs, the conduct or misconduct of the North or the South. It concerns principles on which all are agreed.

THAT EACH STATE HAS Tit RIGHT TO REGULATE SIER OWN DOMESTIC RELATIONS AND

INSTITUTIoNS-TIIAT THE COURTs OF TuE Us~vzn STATES HAVE NO RIGHT TO

INTERFERN WITH OR CONTROL TIlEM-qIlAT CITIZENS OF OTHER STATES TIlAT COME

UPON HER osa ARE, WHILE TIlEaR, iIOU~D TO REsPEcT ANI) 05Ev IlER

LAWN:-TH~SE, I say, are the principles involved here, and they are quite as dear to the SOUTH as to the Noa~ii: they ought to be quite as dear to the NORTH as to the SOUTH. It has come to the point that, failing your aid, they are no longer ~afe

Page 18 view page image

18 NARRATYVE OF TIlE CASE OF in Pennsylvania. I invoke that aid with confidence, and, i fit be granted the rights of the Comm@nwealth will have been vindicated, and the affair from which these qoestions have originated-untoward in all its aspects-will be left to be determined by the laws of the State, in some appropriate forum.”. -. Posterity will scarcely believe that Pennsylvania, boasting of her democracy, and her ten~ious respect for State Rights, con Id have bad a Supreme Bene1~ of Judges, all of whom, wilk one exeeplion, united in refusing to grant a writ of habeas corpus upon this application. Yet such was the fact, and long will it be remembered, to the shame of the Conimonwealth, and the disgrace of those judicial officers who perverted justice, and sou~ht to establish iniquity by their interpretations of law. Judge Black pronounced the opinion of the Court, which was concurred in by Judges Lewis, Woodward and Lowrie. The writ was refused for the following reason, expressed in the language of Judge Black: “We have no authority, jurisdiction or power to decide anything h~re except the simple fact that the District Court had power to punish for contempt a person who disobeys its process-that the petitioner is convicted of such contempt-and that the conviction is conclusive upon us. The jurisdiction of the Court on the case which had been before it and everything which preceded the conviction are out of our reach, and they are not examinable by us-and, of course, not now intended to be decided.” Thus it has been determined, by the highest judicial authority of Pennsylvania, that the etiquette of courts towards each other, is of greater value, and its maintenance of more importance, than the dearest rights and the personal liberties of the citizens. liowever unworthy or illegally a Federal Judge may imprison any man or woman of this commonwealth, thougl~ his decision may be the result of stupid ignorance, personal dislike, or desire for revenge, (and the world’s history furnishes abundant proof that judges may be guilty of all these,) there is no redress for the outraged citizen; the officers of the State, who were appointed by the people to protect him against such outrage deliberately connive with his persecutor, and even the right of a free people to the habeas corpus is sacr(ficed to the etiquette of Courts! The Court, in this case of Passmore Williamson, not only denied to him that which was his by legal right, but, it stooped to insult a pri

Page 19 view page image

PASSMORE WILLIAMSO~. 19 soner with taunts worthy of the judicial bench of England in the days of James the Second. Incapable of comprehending the moral heroisni which suffers imprisonment and death, for the ake of a prin. c’pTh, these judges sneeringly intimate that he is covetous of the honors of martyrdom and, then, with the heartless sarcasm of an In quisitor over his tortured victim, they coolly tell him that he “carries the key of his prison in his own pocket,” and “can come t)Ut when he will, by making terms with the Court that sent him there.” The terms which he must make, are, of course, the disavowal of what he believes to be truth, and tlie utterance of what he believes to be a lie, and iley cannot imagine why he does not make them; the key which would open his prison door, is the stain of perjury on his soul, and they cannot imagine why he does not use it. From this decision, which will be remembered, with that of Judge Kane, long after the authors of both will wish them forgotten, Judge Knox emphatically and earnestly dissented. He closes his very ably written opinion, in dissent, with the fbllowing recapitulation of the grounds on which he would have awarded the writ. “1. At common law, and by our statute of 1785, the writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a writ of right, demandable whenever a petition in due form asserts what, if true, would entitle the party to relief. 2.That an allegation in a petition that the petitioner is restrained of his liberty by an order of a Judge or Court without jurisdiction, shows uch probable cause as to leave it no longer discretionary with the Court or Judge to whom application is made whether the writ shl or shall not sssue. 3.That where a person is imprisoned by an order of a Judge of the District Court of the United States for refusing to answer a writ of habeas corpus, he is entitled to be discharged from such imprisonment if the Judge of the District Court had no authority to issue the writ. 4.That the power to issue writs of habeas corpus by the Judges of the Federal Courts is a mere auxiliary power, and that no such writ can be issued by such Judges where the cause of complaint to be remedied by it is beyond their jurisdiction. 5.That the Courts of the Federal Government are Courts of limited jurisdiction, derived from the Constitution of the United States and the a~ts of Congress under the Constitution, and that when the jurisdiction is not given by the Constitution or by Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, it does not exist. 6.That when it does not appearby the record that the Court hadjurisdiction in a proceeding under our habeas corpu~ act to relieve from an

Page 20 view page image

20 NARRATIVE OF TllE CASE OF illegal mprisonment, want of jurisdiction may be shown by proving the facts in the case. .That where the inquiry as to the jurisdiction of a Court arises upon a rule for a habeas corpus, all the facts set forth in the petition tending to show want ofjurisdiction are to be considered as true, unless they contradict the records. 8.That when the owner of a slave voluntarily brings his slave from a slave to a free State, without any intention of remaining therein, the right of the slave to his freedom depends upon the law of the State into which he is thus bro~ght. 9.That if a slave so brought into a free State escapes from the custody of his master while in said State, the right of the master to reclaim him is not a question arising under the Constitution of the United States or the laws thereof; and therefore a Judge of the United States cannot issue a writ of habeas corpus directed to one who it is alleged withholds the possession of the slave from the master, commanding him to produce the body of the slave before said judge. 10. That the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has no jurisdiction because a controversy is between citizens of different States, and that a proceeding by habeas corpus is in no legal sense a controversy between private parties. 11. That the power of the several Courts of the United States to inflict summary punishment for contempt of Court in disobeying a writ of the Court is expressly confined to cases of disobedience to lawful writs. 12. That where it appears from the record that the conviction was for disobeying a writ of habeas corpus, which writ the Court have no jurisdiction to issue, the conviction is coram nonjuJice, and void. For these reasons I do most respectfully, but most earnestly, dissent from the judgment of the majority of my brethren refusing the writ applied for.” All honor should be rendered to Judge Knox, for his fidelity to law and the right, in opposition t(; all his fellowjudges. The people will remember him. Subscquently to the announcement of the d~cision of the`Court, and the dissenting opinion of Judge Knox, Judge Lowrie publisl)cd l~is opi1)ion, wherein he differs, ou some points, from the deeision. lie says: “I have a very strong impression that no Court is justified in issuing a habeas corpus for the purpose of restoring a slave to his ma~ter; and that is very plainly the purpose for which the writ was issued out of the District Court. I do not think that our writ has any such purpose, or ever

Page 21 view page image

PASSMOllE wILLrAMsoN. 21 h~d. it was intended to secure the liberty of the subject, and not to try rights of property.;; “I have, m~reover, a very strong impression that there is no way in which the ease before the Distriet Judge can be regarded; that would entitle the Federal Judiciary to take cognizance of it.” He proceeds to say that he had been willing to grantthewrit and hear the case; but after tl;is expression of opinioi~, he enters upon an argu meat against Ihe interference of one Court with another, and eoncludcs by concurring in the refusal of the writ. It does not appear what were the reasons and motives whieh operated in changing his )pinion during il~e interval between the sittings of the Court in Bedford and in Philadelphia, but, more grossly inconsistent than his fellowjudges, in spite of his “very strong impression” that the prisoner is illegally and unjustly imprisoned by ajudge who had no jurisdiction in the ease; he deliberately refuses to perform his j udicial duty in redressing the wrong! Citizens of Pe;insylvania! what shall be the end of these things? An oflcer of the Federal Government has usurped authority in a case wholly beyond his jurisdiction, and without law, or the shadow of law, has immured in one of your prisons, a citizen of Pennsylvania. Your own Supreme Be tick of Judges fold tl~eir hands; and refuse to enforce your laws for his protection. In the person of Pasamore Williamson, ilie rights of every mnn and womati of this commonwealth have been invaded, and you now hold your possession of personal liberty, and its defense, the habeas co’J)us, in which yea have gloried, at the merey of judicial tyrants who may, at any hour, summon you into their presence, by illegally issued writs of habeas corp’?ts, and, on charges of constructive contempt, commit you to prison without bail, and without hope of redress. Will you take warning before it is too late, and arouse yourselves to defend your liberties, and avert the evil which threatens every citizen of this State? Lord Camden, who has been styled, “one of the purest Judges who ever adorned the English Bench,~’ has said: ” The diseretThn of a judge is the la~v of tyra its. It is always unknown. It is d~fferent in J(~rent n~en. li is cas~tal, and depends ipon constitutioji, tenzper, andfteling. L the best, it is ofientimes caprice; in the wors4
it is every vice, foIi~,’ a~id passion, to which hunian nature`is liable.”

The Slave power of this nation, which has been long and steadily encroaching upon the rights of the North, emboldened by success,

Page 22 view page image

22 NARRATIVE OF THE CASE OF has evidently resolved to re-establish slavery on your soil, by asserting and maintaining, in defiance of your laws, the right to carry and hold their slaves wherever they choose to go, under the Constitution of the United States. In thiS insolent attempt it seems to have found an assistant in one of your own citizens, who, from his seat in tiio District Court of the United States, defies and tramples on the laws of Pennsylvania, and perverts ” the great remedial process by which 1The~~1y iS vindicated and restored,” to the base purpose of reducing free persons to slavery. John II. Wheeler attempted to carry off, as slaves, from Pennsylvania, persons whom your laws declare to be free, and by so doing rendered himself liable to the legal penMties which you have affixed to the crime of kidnapping. Judge Kane asserts that “he who`inites with others to commit a crime, shares with them all the legal liabilities that attend on its commission.“Out of his own mouth nad by your laws is he condemned. If you will tamely submit to these outrages on your laws and on your rights, what can you expect but that the usurped power which has stricken down the habeas corpus, in Pennsylvania, will rob you of the trial by jury, and of the freedom of speech and the pres~, when it shall serve its purpose so to do. The bold wickedness which dared the one, will be capable of the other. Lay not the flattering unction to your souls that this case concerns the interests of one individual only; it involves the honor and safety of every citizen of the commonwealth. While Passmore Williamson is thus imprisoned, the sovereignty of tlie State and the true liberty of her citizens lie prostrate in the dust. On you rests the solemn responsibility of choosing whether your deareat righ~ shall hang upon the caprice of a tyrant, or whether you will assert the sovereignty of the State, and teach these law~defying Judgcs to tremble before the indignation of ajustly incensed people. Since the foregoing narrative has becn prepared for the press, another Decision has been pronounced by Judge Kane, in the District Court of the United States. It was in reply to a petition of Jane Johnson, presented by her couusel, J. B. Townsend and John M. Read, Esqrs., showing that she is one of the three parti~s nained in the -writ of llabeas Corpus issued in the case of John II. Wheeler versus Passmore Williamson, and stating Fi?st, that Wheeler had no control over her or her children at the time of issuing the aforesaid writ, they then Iseing free; Second, that the writ was issued

Page 23 view page image

PASSMORE WThMAMSON. 23 against her wish; T~ird, il~at since she left Mr.

Wheeler, which, she asserts, she did of her own will and desire, she has not been restrained of her liberty by Mr. Williamson, or any other person; and Fourlk, that under this writ of habeas corpus, a writ designed to restore freemen to liberty when unduly restrained thereof, John II.

Wheeler seeks to recover the petitioner and her ci~ildren, and reduce them again into slavery. She therefore prays that the writ may be quashed, and that Passmore Williamson may be discharged from his imprisonmeiit. Judge Kane refused the application to enter this paper among the records of the Court, on the ground that Jane Johnson had no slabus in the Court. A very small part of the decision relates directly to the application bcforc tho Judge, the principal portion of it being an elaborate defense of his conduct towards Passmore Williamson. The most important point of his decision is the bold assertion of tiie right of the slaveholders to pass, with their slaves, through Pennsylvania or anyother State of the Union.

lie asserts this on the ground that slaves are roperty, and asks, “liow can it be that a State may single out this one kind of property from among all the rest, and deny to it the right of passing over its soil-passing with its owner, parcel of his travelling equipment, as inuch so as the horse he rides on, his great coat, or his carpet-bag?” The decision is a bold revelation of what a discerning eye could see from the beginning of this case, that the object and determination was and is, to obtain possession of Jane Johnson and her children and re-enslave them, and to this base end he is keeping, and is determined to keep, Passmore Williamson in prison. Notwithstanding the well-established fact that it is and was utterly beyond the power of Mr. Williamson to bring Jane and her clildren before the Court; that neither she nor her friends would suffer him to expose her to such peril, even ~ he had wished to do so, Judge Kane says: “His duty, then as now, was and is, to bring in the bodies, or, if they had passed beyond his control, to declare, under oath or affirmatiop, so far as he knew, what had become of them.” [That is, to give the information which will enable the claimant either to reeover his property, or to hold some one else for their value.] “And from this duty, or from the constraint that seeks to enforce it, there can he no escape.”

Pennsylvanians are now to decide whether th~y will submit to the establishment of slavery on their own soil; whether they

Page 24 view page image

`24 PASSMORE WTLLTAMSON. will permit slaves to be carried or driveit across their State sii7. gly or chained in coffies, or whether tltey will enIbree tJteir own laws f9r the protectio~ of freedom. If il~is right of transit be granted, who is to decide how long a time slavehoIdei~s, or slavedrivers with their gangs, may spend ill “passing through” a free State, or what operations peculiar to il~eir trade, though revolting to hunianity, they may b(s permitted to engage in. Judge Kane’s defense of his~persecation of Passmore ~~illiamson, on the ground that Pennsylvania may be made a sl~tveholding State, whenever a trafficker in liuwan beings chooses to drive his victims through it, will not avail for his justification before the tribunal of the PEOPLE LETTER FROM PASSMORE

WILLIAMSON. The llowiug etter was written by Pass’iiore Williamson in reply to one ad& ss’sd to him by a gentleman of New York city, inquiring respect in fur g?in~ans fur his relief. The only just grounds on which he could 0 r~e;;~~as having been set forth in his petition to the Supreme Court O~j -~n~ivania, and that Couit having declined to act in the case Mr. Willla~~aon b~s exhausted the means of legal redress provided by the State, and he indignantly rejects the other alternative of dishonorable submission to the tyranny of usurped power. No. ~8

PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Paisos, Sept. 29, 1855. DEAa Sta: Your letter of the 2vth inst. is now before me, and in reply to your inquiry, I may say that I contemplate no further legal proceedings with reference to my liberation from this jail, in which I am now conlined. I-have now been kept here for more than two mo,,ths, and I can see no prospect of 4beration. I am a native, and ba~e always been a citizen of Pennsylvan~4 nd telieving myself atrociously wronged, I applied to the highest trib4l ka~~~ to oar laws, but relief has been withheld. I can expect none t~~,a~tbority that placed me here, without dishonorable sub~ission.; v$4&en guilty neither of falsehood, dissimulation, nor contumacy, )){ ~~` that it is no case for a degrading capitulation. Such a-courtt’t~oul bring with it a diminution of self respect more op. pressive thart~the power now seeking to crush out the highest attribtite of State sovereignty by immuring me within these walls Accept for yourself, and communicate to others who &Lvor me with their coasid~ration, my most grateful acknowledgements.

Respectfully yours, &c., P. WILLIAMSON.” At the Pai~anv.~rnr~

ANTI-SLAvEaT Ossirn, No. 31 North Fifth St., Anti-Slavery Ilooks, Tracts and Newspapers may be always obtained; aD(l a free Reading Room is open to the pubhe.

Powered by DLXS

To comment or inquire about content, contact moa-feedback@umich.edu To report errors, contact umdl-help@umich.edu Reprint Information for this collection