The Underground Railroad
in close association with her, knew she had a mark upon her forehead
corresponding to the one she bore on her own. And by dint of all these
matters, this long continued acquaintance only reviving the impressions
received in early life, they had no doubt of the identity of the person.
Was there ever a more perfect train of evidence exhibited to prove the
identity of a person, than on the present occasion?
* * * * *
We have called witnesses on this point alone, and have more than
counterpoised the evidence produced upon the opposite side. And we have
not only made it manifest that she was a free woman, but we have
confirmed her charter by separate proof. What does the gentleman say
further? Do I understand him to say we have no right to determine this
matter judicially? Now what is all this about? Why is it before you,
taking your time day after day? According to this argument, you have
nothing to do but to give the master the flesh he claims. But you are to
be satisfied that you have sufficient reason to believe that these
claims are well founded. And if you leave that matter in a state of
doubt, it does not require a single witness to be called on the part of
the respondent, to prove on the opposite side of the question. But we
have come in with a weight of evidence demolishing the structure he has
raised, restoring the woman to her original position in the estimation
of the law. "Well," says the gentleman, "it is like the case of a
fugitive from justice." But it is not, and if it were, it would not
benefit his case. The case of a fugitive from justice is one in which
the prisoner is remanded to the custody of the law, handed over for
legal purposes. The case of a fugitive from labor is a case in which the
individual is handed over sometimes to a merciless master, and very
rarely to a charitable one. Does the counsel mean to say that in the
case of a fugitive from justice he is not bound to satisfy the judge
before whom, the question is heard? He should prove our witnesses
unworthy of belief. As Judge Grier said, upon a former occasion, "You
can choose your own time; you have full and abundant opportunities on
every side to prepare against any contingency." Why don't they do so? He
is not to come here and force on a case, and say, I suppose you take
every thing for granted. He is to come prepared to prove the justice of
his claim before the tribunal who is to decide upon it. That he has not
done successfully, and I would, therefore, ask your Honor, after the
elaborate argument on the part of the plaintiff, to discharge this
woman: for after such an abundance of testimony unbroken and
incontestable as that we have exhibited here, it would be a monstrous
perversion of reason to suppose that anything more could be required.
Mr. McMurtrie replied by reasserting his positions. It was a grave
question for the court to consider what evidence was required. He
thought that this decision might be the turning case to show whether the
act of Congress would be carried out or whether we were to return in
fact to the state of affairs under the old laws.
Judge Kane said, in reference to the remarks at the close of Mr.
McMurtrie's speech: So long as I retain my seat on this bench, I shall
endeavor to enforce this law without reference to my own sympathies, or
the sympathies and opinions of others. I do not think, in the cases
under this act of Congress, or a treaty, or constitutional, or legal
provision for the extradition of fugitives from justice, that it is
possible to imagine that conclusive proof of identity could be
established by depositions. From the nature of the case and the facts to
be proved, proof cannot be made in anticipation of the identity of the
party. That being established, it is the office of the judge, to
determine whether a _prima facie_ case indicates the identity of the
party charged, with the party before him.
* * * * *
On the other hand, the evidence of the claimant has been met, and
regarding the bearing of the witnesses for the respondent, met by
witnesses who testified, with apparent candor and great intelligence. If
they are believed, then the witnesses for the claimant are mistaken. The
question is, whether two witnesses for the claimant, who have not seen
the respondent for twenty-three, one for twenty-four years, are to be
believed in preference to four witnesses on the other side, three of
whom have seen her frequently since 1826, and known her as Euphemia
Williams, and the fourth, who has not seen her for a quarter of a
century, but testifies that when they were children, they used to jest
each other about scars, which they still bear upon their persons; I am
bound to say that the proof by the four witnesses has not been
overthrown by the contrary evidence of the two who only recognized her
when they called on her with the marshall. One says he called her Mahala
Purnell as soon as he saw her. He might be mistaken. He inferred he
would find her at the place to which he went. There were three persons
in the room, one was Mahala Richardson, whom he knew, a young girl, and
the prisoner. If she had been alone, his recognition would have been of
no avail. The fact is obvious to this court, that the respondent has no
peculiar physiognomy or gait. It has been shown she has no peculiarity
of voice; I cannot but feel that the fact alleged by the claimant is
very doubtful, when the witnesses, without mark or peculiarity, testify
that they can readily recognize the girl of fifteen in the woman of
forty. The prisoner is therefore discharged.
A slight attempt at applause in the court room was promptly suppressed.
The intelligence of the discharge of the woman, was quickly spread to
those without, who raised shouts of joy. The woman, with her children,
were hurried into a carriage, which was driven first to the Anti-slavery
office and then to the Philadelphia Institute, in Lombard Street above
Seventh. Here she was introduced to a large audience of colored people,
who hailed her appearance with lively joy; several excited speeches were
made, and great enthusiasm was manifested in and outside of the building
and the adjacent streets. When Euphemia came out, the horses were taken
out of the carriage, and a long rope was attached, which was taken by as
many colored people as could get hold of it, and the woman and her
children thus conveyed to her home.
The procession was accompanied by several hundreds of men, women and
boys. They dragged the carriage past the residence of the counsel for
the respondent, cheering them by huzzas of the wildest kind, and then
took the vehicle and its contents to the residence of the woman,
Germantown Road near Fifth street, beguiling the way with songs and
shouts. The whole scene was one of wild, ungovernable excitement,
produced by exuberance of joy.
The masterly management of abolitionists in connection with the counsel,
saved poor Euphemia from being dragged from her children into hopeless
bondage. While the victory was a source of great momentary rejoicing on
the part of the friends of the slave it was nevertheless quite manifest
that she was only released by the "skin of her teeth." "A scar on her
forehead" saved her. Relative to this important mark, a few of
Euphemia's friends enjoyed a very pleasing anecdote, which, at the time,
they were obliged to withhold from the public; it is too good to be kept
any longer. For a time, Euphemia was kept in durance vile, up in the
dome of Independence Hall, partly in the custody of Lieutenant Gouldy of
the Mayor's police, (who was the right man in the right place), whose
sympathies were secretly on the side of the slave. While his pitying
eyes gazed on Euphemia's sad face, he observed a very large scar on her
forehead, and was immediately struck with the idea that that old scar
might be used with damaging effect by the witnesses and counsel against
her. At once he decided that the scar must be concealed, at least, until
after the examination of the claimant's witnesses. Accordingly a large
turban was procured and placed on Euphemia's head in such a manner as to
hide the scar completely, without exciting the least suspicion in the
minds of any. So when the witnesses against her swore that she had no
particular mark, David Paul Brown made them clinch this part of their
testimony irrevocably. Now, when Sarah Gayly affirmed (on the part of
the prisoner) that "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," etc., if it was not evident to all, it was to
some, that she had "stolen their thunder," as the "chop-fallen"
countenances of the slave-holder's witnesses indicated in a moment.
Despair was depicted on all faces sympathizing with the pursuers.
With heavy pecuniary losses, sad damage of character, and comfortless,
the unhappy claimant and his witnesses were compelled to return to
Maryland, wiser if not better men. The account of this interesting
trial, we have condensed from a very careful and elaborate report of it
published in the "Pennsylvania Freeman," January 13th, 1857.
Apparently, the vigilance of slave-hunters was not slackened by this
defeat, as the records show that many exciting cases took place in
Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, and if the records of the old
Abolitionist Society could be published, as they should be, it would
appear that many hard-fought battles have taken place between Freedom
and Slavery on this soil.
Here in conclusion touching the Fugitive Slave Law, arrests under it,
etc., as a fitting sequel we copy two extracts from high authority. The
first is from the able and graphic pen of James Miller McKim, who was
well known to stand in the front ranks of both the Anti-slavery Society
and the Underground Rail Road cause through all the long and trying
contest, during which the country was agitated by the question of
immediate emancipation, and shared the full confidence and respect of
Abolitionists of all classes throughout the United States and Great
Britain.
The letter from which we have made this extract was written to Hon.
George Thompson, the distinguished abolitionist of England, and speaks
for itself. The other quotation is from the pen of a highly respectable
and intelligent lady, belonging to the Society of Friends, or Quakers,
and a most devoted friend of the slave, whose statement obviously is
literally true.
From Mr. McKiM to GEORGE THOMPSON, 1851.
The accompanying parcel of extracts will give you a full account
of the different slave cases tried in this city, under the new
Fugitive Slave Law up to this time. Full and accurate as these
reports are, they will afford you but a faint idea of the
anguish and confusion that have been produced in this part of
the country by this infamous statute. It has turned Southeastern
Pennsylvania into another Guinea Coast, and caused a large
portion of the inhabitants to feel as insecure from the brutal
violence and diabolical acts of the kidnapper, as are the
unhappy creatures who people the shores of Africa. Ruffians from
the other side of the Slave-line, aided by professional
kidnappers on our own soil, a class of men whose 'occupation'
until lately, had been 'gone,' are continually prowling through
the community, and every now and then seizing and carrying away
their prey. As a specimen of the boldness, though fortunately,
not of the success always with which these wretches prosecute
their nefarious trade, read the enclosed article, which I cut
from the _Freeman_, of January 2d, and bear in mind that in no
respect are the facts here mentioned over-stated.