Emancipator and Free American, January 19, 1843.
I have the Toronto (U.C.) Herald of Oct. 17, 1842, containing a sketch of a debate in the Canadian Parliament on this very case of Hackett, which shows the deep suspicion already prevailing there, that they had been imposed upon by Gov. Yell, and led blindfold to do a most abhorrent act, in having aided to reduce a man to slavery.
Oct. 8, 1842 – Dr. Dunlap moved for all the papers relating to the case of Nelson Hackett. He said it was not the case of one man only, but of thousands, and a great principle was involved, of international law. Hackett was charged with felony, but nothing was proved against him, and then he was kept in jail eight weeks, until men could be brought from Arkansas who would swear better. He did not say they had sworn falsely, but he had no confidence in their swearing. But whether the charge was true or false was not the question, for, if true, this government had no authority to give him up. How do we know that there is such a person as the Governor of Arkansas? We know no State but the United States, and if any wrong is to be redressed, the legislation is not between the Governor of Canada and the Governor of Arkansas, but between the Federal Government and the British minister. He was jealous of these slave States, for they have passed laws most disgraceful in regard to the blacks. There are a set of men on the otherside who make a living by stealing the free blacks from our side, and he would give them no encouragement.
Mr. D.B. Viger said it was a case of the greatest importance. The Governor of Canada had no right to surrender any man, be he a subject or a foreigner. The Governor of Canada should not act as a sheriff to the Governor of a State. A man should not be surrendered on a mere charge of a felony, but only for certain crimes against the law of nations, as piracy. It is said there is a law of Upper Canada which authorised the surrender, but Upper Canada had no right to pass such a law. It is the prerogative of the Imperial Government. This man was a foreigner, but he was under the protection of the British Empire. Had the case happened under a despotic government, as was once customary in France, it could have cause no surprise; but that it occurred under a liberal government like England, is astonishing. The care has been taken up in England, and it was said that all was right; but they could not have had all the papers before them, or they would not have said so.
Mr. Harrison hoped the motion would be withdrawn. He had always doubted that the Upper Canada law on this subject was unconstitutional, but since it was law, it had to be obeyed. The treaty just entered into with the United States will put this question on a proper footing. This case was examined by the law officers of the crown in England, and they had approved of the proceedings. The law of Upper Canada authorised the surrender, and the evidence was clear and decisive Hackett was guilty of a larceny, and that not to assist his flight for he had stolen a watch; and as long as the law existed the Executive had no option but to fulfil it, whatever they might think of its unconstitutionality.
Sir A. McNab did not think the government had a right to give up the man. The case had excited a strong sensation through the western part of the province.
Mr. Draper explained the reasons on which the government had acted; referred to a former case; and said besides other difficulties, it was a question whether a human being from a county where he is accounted a chattel, could be held capable of committing a crime. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. Boulton could not think of holding a Slave responsible for what he does, where he is by law deprived of all moral instructions and all right of voluntary action. He could not hold such creatures amenable. In the language of one of America’s greatest men, John Quincy Adams, can cattle commit crime? Can goods and chattels transgress moral law? In some of the states persons are liable to punishment for teaching the Slaves, and we are to hold them accountable for what they are not permitted to know! A strong expression of opinion on the part of this house will render the government very chary in exercising the power given them by a law of doubtful authority. A very painful case occurred at Niagara, in which a man was killed, and the negro escaped, and he was glad that the man had escaped. Hackett was charged with a felony, but he denied that he had committed a felony. As was observed on the Creole case, it was strange that cattle could be pirates or robbers. Government should not give up any man who had been a slave, no matter what was charged on him Are we certain, or can we hope, that he will receive a fair trial, and not be tied to a tree, and burned or flogged to death?
Anti-Slavery Reporter, February 22, 1843.
COLONIAL INTELLIGENCE.
CANADA. – NELSON HACKET. – Proceedings of the Canadian Legislature, Oct. 8, 1842. – DR. DUNLAP moved for all papers relating to the case of Nelson Hacket. He said it was not the case of one man only, but of thousands, and a great principle was involved of international law. Hacket was charged with felony, but nothing was proved against him, and then he was kept in jail eight weeks, until men could be brought from Arkansas who would swear better. He did not say they had sworn falsely, but he had no confidence in their swearing. But whether the charge was true or false was not the question, for, if true, this government had not authority to give him up. How do we know that there is such a person as the Governor of Arkansas? We know no State but the United States, and if any wrong is to be redressed, the legislation is not between the Governor of Canada and the Governor of Arkansas, but between the Federal Government and the British minister. He was jealous of these slave States, for they have passed laws most disgraceful in regard to the blacks. There are a set of men on the other side who make a living by stealing free blacks from our side, and he would give them no encouragement.
Mr. D. B. VIGER said it was a case of the greatest importance. The Governor of Canada had no right to surrender any man, be he a subject or a foreigner. The Governor of Canada should not act as sheriff to the Governor of a State. A man should not be surrendered on a mere charge of felony, but only for certain crimes against the law of nations, as piracy. It is said there is a law of Upper Canada which authorised the surrender, but Upper Canada had no right to pass such a law. It is the prerogative of the Imperial Government. This man was a foreigner, but he was under the protection of the British Empire. had the case happened under a despotic government, as was once customary in France, it could have caused no surprise; but that it occurred under a liberal government like England, is astonishing. The case has been taken up in England, and it was said that all was right; but they could not have had all the papers before them, or they would not have said so.
- HARRISON hoped the motion would be withdrawn. He had always doubted that the Upper Canada law on this subject was unconstitutional, but since it was law, it had to be obeyed. The treaty just entered into with the United States will put this question on a proper footing. This case was examined by the law officers of the crown in England, and they had approved of the proceedings. The law of Upper Canada authorised the surrender, and the evidence was clear and decisive. Hacket was guilty of a larceny, and that not to assist his flight, for he had stolen a watch; and as long as the law existed the Executive had no option but to fulfil it, whatever they might think of its unconstitutionality.
Sir A. M’NAB did not think the Government had a right to give up the man. The case had excited a strong sensation through the western part of the province.
Mr. DRAPER explained the reasons on which the Government had acted; referred to a former case; and said, besides other difficulties, it was a question whether a human being from a country where he is accounted a chattel, could be held capable of committing a crime. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BOULTON could not think of holding a slave responsible for what he does, where he is by law deprived of all moral instruction and all right of voluntary action. He could not hold such creatures amenable. In the language of one of America’s greatest men, John Quincy Adams, can cattle commit crime? Can goods and chattels transgress moral law? In some of the States persons are liable to punishment for teaching the slaves, and we are to hold them accountable for what they are not permitted to know! A strong expression of opinion of the part of this house will render the Government very chary in exercising the power given them by a law of doubtful authority. A very painful case occurred at Niagara, in which a man was killed, and the negro escaped, and he was glad that the man had escaped. Hacket was charged with felony, but he denied that he had committed felony. As was observed on the Creole case, it was strange that cattle should be pirates or robbers. Government should not give up any man who had been a slave, no matter what was charged on him. Are we certain, or can we hope, that he will receive a fair trial, and not be tied to a tree, and burned or flogged to death? – Toronto (U.C.) Herald, Oct. 17th, 1842.