The Underground Railroad
_The Defence_.--Mr. Pierce opened the case by saying that the testimony
for the defence would be clear and conclusive; that the witnesses for
the prosecution are mistaken in the identity of the alleged fugitive.
That at the time they allege her to have been in Maryland, on the
plantation of Dr. Purnell, she was in Chester county, and in the year
Lafayette visited this country, she was in this city. He would confine
the testimony exclusively to these two counties, and show that she is
not the alleged slave.
Henry C. Cornish, sworn. I live in this city, and am a shoemaker; I came
here in the year 1830; before that I lived in Chester county, East
Whiteland township, with Wm. Latta; my father lived with Mr. Latta six
or eight years; I lived there three years before that time, and was
familiar with the place for more than six years before 1830; I saw the
alleged fugitive some five years before 1830, at George Amos', in
Uwchland township, some eight or ten miles from our house; I fix the
time from a meeting being held on the Valley Hill by a minister, named
Nathan D. Tierney; that must have been in 1825; I am positive it was
before the beginning of the year 1828; I have not the least doubt; I
joined church about that time; it was the first of my uniting with the
church; it was in 1825; I joined the Methodist Episcopal Church; before
they built a church they held meetings alternately at people's houses; I
met her at Amos' house, I recollect my father going to dig the
foundation of the church: I saw her there before the church was built; I
knew her before she was married; and since I left there I have met her
at the annual meetings of the church; I have kept up the acquaintance
ever since; I knew that she had two children, that were buried as long
as twenty-one or twenty-two years ago; if the boy had lived he would
have been twenty-three or twenty-four years old; he was the oldest; she
was not married when I first saw her in 1827; she did not appear to be
anything but a girl, and was not married, and she of course could not be
in the condition of a married woman; I was not at her wedding; if I had
not continued to know her, I would not now know her; she was then a
small person; age and flesh would change her a little; her complexion
has not changed; I think she worked for Mrs. Amos; a church record is
now kept very correct; but when I first went into the church, colored
men could not read and write; I acted as the clerk of the church; I
united with the church after I first saw her; I have seen her very often
since I left Chester; five hundred times to speak safely; I worship down
town and she up in Brown street; to the best of my recollection they
moved over Schuylkill about twelve years ago; she has lived here about
nine years; she has six children, I have heard; I have seen five; the
oldest is eighteen or nineteen; the youngest a sucking babe; I have
visited her house since I have been here; I was not sent for by my
uncle, who was employed by Joseph Smith & Co., next to the Girard Bank;
I was with Edward Biddle for four years, until he was elected President
of the Morris Canal and Banking Company, and then I went to learn
shoemaking under instructions, since which time I have been in business
for myself; my father burnt limestone for Mr. Latta; he and his wife are
dead; I was there a day or two ago for witnesses to testify in this
case.
_Cross-examined._--I was born in 1814, and am thirty-seven years of age;
when I first knew her I suppose she was fifteen years old; she was
married about three years afterwards; her husband's name is Micajah
Williams; I heard he was in prison for stealing; her name before
marriage was Phamie Coates; I didn't know her husband before they were
married; don't know whether they came from Maryland; I never knew of
Mahala Richardson before last evening in court; the difference in her
appearance is a natural one, that every body is acquainted with; I mean
that a little boy is not a man, and a growing girl is not a woman; age
and flesh and size make a difference; if I had not conversed with her
during the twenty-one years, I would not have known her; I never changed
a word with her about the case, except to say I was sorry to see her
here; I knew her the moment I saw her; her arrest could not have been in
the newspapers of the morning as she was not arrested until seven
o'clock that day; I went to Chester to look for witnesses; I came to the
court because I am a vigilant man, and my principle is to save any
person whose liberty is in danger; I had heard that a woman was
arrested; her business is to get work wherever she can.
Deborah Ann Boyer, sworn. I was thirty-three last January; I live within
one mile of West Chester; I am a married woman; I have lived there since
1835. I went there with my mother; I can read; I have seen the alleged
fugitive before this; I first knew her at Downingtown, when she came to
my mother's house; that was before I had gone to West Chester with my
mother; you can tell how long it was, for it was in 1826; my brother was
born in that year; I was quite small then; don't know how she came
there; she was with my mother during her confinement; my brother is
dead; it is written down in our Testament; and I took an epitaph from it
to put on the tombstone; the last time I saw it was when the fellow
killed the school-mistress. I looked because about 1830, a man killed a
woman, and was hung, and I wanted to see how long ago it was. I have
seen her more or less ever since, until within two years. I don't
remember when she went from mother, but I saw her at Mr. Latta's
afterwards. I have no doubt she is the woman; she was then a slim, tall
girl, larger than myself; she is not darker now, but heavier set every
way.
* * * * *
Sarah Gayly affirmed.--I am between forty-seven and forty-eight years of
age. I live in the city at this time. I was raised in Chester county, in
1824, and have been here about five years. I lived in Downingtown nine
or ten years. I lived awhile in West Chester, and lived in Chester
county until about five years ago. I know the alleged fugitive. I first
saw her in the neighborhood of Downingtown, at a place they call
Downing's old stage office; she worked in the house with me; it was
somewhere near 1824, just before Lafayette came about; she worked off
and on days' work, to wash dishes; she was a small girl then, very thin,
and younger than me. I met with her, as near as I can tell you, down in
the valley, at a place called the Valley Inn. I used to see her off and
on at church, in 1826. I visited her at Mr. Latta's, after she lived at
the Valley Inn. I don't know when she left that county. I know the
alleged fugitive is the same person; she belonged to the same church,
Ebenezer. I know the brothers Cornish, and have whipped them many a
time. I lived with Latta myself, and the Cornish, who is now a minister,
lived there; he lived there before I did, and so did the alleged
fugitive. I was then between twenty-three and twenty-five years old; she
was a strip of a girl; she was not in the family way when she came
there.
Cross-examined.--I have not seen her since 1826, until I saw her here in
the court-room; I recognized her when I first saw her here without
anybody pointing her out, and she recognized me; I have reason to know
her, because she has the same sort of a scar on her forehead that I
have; we used to make fun of each other about the marks; she went by the
name of Fanny Coates. I know nothing about her husband; she did not do
the work of a woman in 1826; she washed dishes, scrubbed, etc. I heard
her say her father and mother were dead, and that they lived somewhere
in that neighborhood; she at that time made her home with a family named
Amos.
The Judge asked to see the scar on the witness' forehead and that on the
forehead of the respondent. They were brought near the bench, and the
marks inspected, which were plainly seen on both. During this time the
infant of the respondent was entrusted to another colored woman. The
child, who, up to this time, had been quiet, raised a piteous cry and
would not be pacified. The whole scene excited a great sensation.
* * * * *
Mr. Brown then rose in reply to the plaintiff's counsel, and said: If I
consulted my own views, I should not say one syllable, in answer to the
arguments of the learned counsel upon the other side, and relying as I
do upon the evidence, and out of respect to the convenience of your
honor, I shall say very little as it is. The views of the counsel it
appears to me, are most extraordinary indeed. He seems to take it for
granted that everything that is said on the part of the witnesses for
the claimant is gospel, and that what is said on the part of the
witnesses for the respondent, is to be considered matter of suspicion.
Now I rate no man by his size, color, or position, but I appeal to you
in looking at the testimony that has been produced here, on the
different sides of the question, and judging it by its intrinsic worth,
whether there is the slightest possible comparison between the witnesses
on the part of the plaintiff, and those of the defendant, either in
intelligence, memory, language, thought, or anything else. This is a
fine commentary upon the disparagement of color! Looking at the men as
they are, as you will, I say that the testimony exhibited on the part of
the respondent would outweigh a whole theatre of such men as are
exhibited on the part of the complainant. I say nothing here about their
respectability. It would have been proper for the learned counsel on the
part of the plaintiff, if he thought the witnesses on the part of the
respondent unworthy of belief, to have proved them so; but instead of
that, he attempts to bolster up men, who, whether respectable or
otherwise, from their inconsistency, involutions and tergiversations in
regard to this case, produce no possible effect upon the judicial mind,
but that which is unfavorable to themselves. Impartial men, are they?
How do they appear before you? They appear under cover from first to
last; standing upon their right to resist inquiries legitimately
propounded to them; burning up letters since they have arrived,
calculated to shed light upon this subject; and before they come here,
corresponding with and deriving information from a man, an evident
kidnapper, who dare not sign his name and gets his wife to sign hers.
This is the character these men exhibit here before you; clandestinely
meeting together at the tavern, and that to consult in regard to the
identity of a person about whom they know nothing. Can they refer to any
marks by which to identify this person? Nothing at all of the kind. Do
they, with the exception of the first witness examined, state even the
time when she left? Have they produced the letter written by this
kidnapper, showing how he described her? Why, let me ask, is not the
full light allowed to shine on this case? But even with the light they
have shed upon it, I would have been perfectly content to have rested
it, relying upon their testimony alone, for a just decision.
* * * * *
Now, what man among them, professes to have seen this woman for
twenty-one years? Not one. The learned gentleman attempts to sustain his
case, because one of our witnesses, certainly not more than one, has not
seen this woman for about the same length of time: but don't you
perceive, that in this case they all lived in the same State, if not in
the same county--they had intercourse with persons mutually acquainted
with her, and three out of four of them, met her for several months at
the same church; and one witness, who had long been in her society, and