custody, and being brought by force within our jurisdiction, the federal laws made for recapture of fugitives from justice, or from labour, were alike inoperative, inasmuch as they require voluntary residence as the ground of jurisdiction. On consultation, we deemed it improper to interfere. Great Britain had taken the lead in the assertion of human rights; she had struck the fetters from her own slaves, and was pioneer among the nations of the world in abolishing slavery. She had formally thought proper to surrender an alleged criminal; she had deemed the offence so serious as to justify the exercise of that prerogative about which nations are so jealous that they have oft refused the surrender of even murderers. She had done so on mature deliberation. Would it become us to assume a standard higher than hers! to become the patrons of a crime she had thus markedly denounced as atrocious! We thought not: we were trustees seeking to carry out a great and sacred principle confided to us, and were bound to do a great and sacred principle confided to us, and were bound to do so wisely and discreetly. Had we interfered in this case, we would have fought the battle of liberty, not on its own sacred principles, but as protectors of crime; for the prisoner was in custody as a criminal, not as a slave; and that he was an aggravated criminal, Britain’s unusual surrender nationally avowed. To fight this contest, then, would but have weakened us for those that await us on the broad platform of man’s inalienable rights; have added to existing prejudices that which would have arisen form our asserting a standard of morals higher than that of Great Britain. In Detroit we had begun to turn public sympathy in favour of the fugitive slave, and we dared not to weaken that sympathy for the many unfortunates who need it, by an exertion in behalf of a single individual.
We therefore reluctantly and with grief crushed down our own feelings, and sorrowing committed the hapless Hackett to the dire fate that awaited him – a fate, not as Sir Charles Bagot doubtless anticipated to be measured by the impartial majesty of law – but to be doomed by an incensed master, an infuriated overseer, and the vindictive passion of a slave-ocracy, daily smarting under the assertion of their captive’s right to freedom. What that fate was we shuddered to think. May humanity never learn it: but let ignorance shroud it, along with many a deed of kindred horror, beneath its impenetrable veil.
I only add, that the projectof recovering fugitive slaves, even from within the heretofore sacred palladium of British protection, by the cunning device of alleged crime, is becoming a frequent occurrence, and is stimulated to increasing perfection by every successful issue. It is the duty of Great Britain, if she desires the protection of her national honour, to refuse the surrender, even of the petty foreign criminal, to that country which has denied to her the British murderer; and if she seeks consistency in her anti-slavery principles, she should avoid being deluded by a pretence of the slave interest that can procure larceny indictments for each fugitive, who, as a piece of locomotive property, commits a high theft in the eye of the slave-holding law, the moment he dares to steal himself from the tender mercies of avaricious power.
When Hackett was, as mentioned, rushed across the Detroit river under secret haste, and amid the darkness of a winter’s night, the Canadian court which had cognizance of his offence was near at hand. What return was made of the informations, or what by the jailor of his charge, is not known. It will be recollected that Hackett was not at large, the legal subject of surrender by British authorities, but a prisoner under British law, for an offence it claimed to be in its jurisdiction, and the person of the alleged criminal was at the control only of that law. The justice who arrested Hackett was bound to have returned the informations to the court, and the jailor who had his custody was responsible for his person. The governor’s warrant was controlled by the higher power of the law, and could have taken effect only when that law had performed its duty.
(Signed) C.H. STEWART,
Attorney and Counsellor at Law,
New York, August 9th, 1842. Detroit, State of Michigan.
REMARKS.
The writer of the above has carefully restricted his allegations within the bounds of stern fact, and excluded surmises, or aught that on inquiry might prove a mis-statement There are however, we are assured, matters connected with the case, that aggravate its dark features. It is feared that Hackett was a victim of conspiracy among the Canadians and his pursuers. His restoration to captivity, and the recovery of the horse, watch and coat, were alone sufficient to stimulate cupidity, but the advantage of his capture from the very clutches of England was invaluable to men so affected by the escape of slaves, and who would thus be enabled to exhibit their power at overreaching even British protection. Their poor victims are too ignorant to understand the “modue operandi” – it is sufficient that they see within their masters’ power one of themselves taken from soil heretofore deemed inaccessible to the slave-holder. This, of course, paralyzes all effort at escape, as proving that there is safety in no place. Thus the captors had every inducement to great exertion and pecuniary sacrifice. There is reason to fear that the whole proceeding was a concerted movement between the pursuers and the Canadian authorities, that the plan was arranged between them, that Hackett was to be arrested and held to bail until an indictment was found in Arkansas – a demand made, and the prisoner surrendered – that there never was any intention of trying the man in Canada – that the contrary was alleged only to deceive his friends, and blind them as to the movement in Toronto – that the frontier authorities were to use, and did use their influence with Sir Charles Bagot – that they were to be well paid provided the surrender was made. The names of several official and private individuals, who it is confidently believed were engaged in this dark plot, have been given to us. Of course, much that then took place sleeps in the parties own bosoms, and, however plausible or strong conjectures may bear to their guilt, it would be improper to make it a matter of direct charge. The jailor undoubtedly required the sanction of the crown presiding officer before he gave up a prisoner for whom he was responsible, and some curious considerations must have governed that officer in departing so very far from his duty, and the law of the British empire. If the governor be properly applied to on this subject, he will, we presume, disclose the representations made to him, and bring to light the amount of fees paid to subordinate officers in the matter. We trust that the never tiring vigilance of the Committee in London will so conduct the inquiry, that the British governor and all his subordinates will be made to feel their responsibility, and that quietude may be given to the thousands of coloured American citizens who have sought an asylum in her Britannic Majesty’s dominions.