“Fugitive Slaves in Upper Canada,” Liberator, April 21, 1843.
On Saturday, the 4th inst, a Deputation of the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society and their friends waited on Lord Ashburton by appointment, relative to the bearing of the tenth clause of his treaty with the United States, on the security of fugitive slaves seeking refuge from oppression in Upper Canada. The Deputation consisted of Messrs. J. Forster, Stacey, Alexander, Barrett, Sterry, Cooper, Conder, Beaumont, and Scoble; the Rev. Messrs. Hinton, Carlile, and Dr. Rolph, Upper Canada, Dr. Madden, and M.L’Instant, of Haiti. – They were received with much courtesy by Lord Ashburton, and, throughout a lengthened interview, in which the important subject was fully gone into, His Lordship gave them the fullest explanations of his intentions in acceding to the clause, and assured the Deputation that it was no more designed to touch the fugitive slave, than to affect the case of deserters or parties charged with hightreason. Giving the noble Lord entire credit for his intentions, the Deputation could not but express their regret that the same limitation which existed in the former treaty on the same subject did not occur in the present. – In the extradition clause of that treaty, fugitives slaves, were expressly expected.
The Deputation pointed out to the noble lord the danger to which refugees from slavery were exposed under the clause in his treaty, and trust he felt the urgent necessity for immediate measures of precaution to prevent its becoming in the highest degree oppressive to them, and dishonorable to this country.
That attempts will be made under the clause by southern planters to recover their slaves, there can be no doubt; that they have their agents or emissaries already in Canada is certain; and that, as in the recent case of Nelson Hackett, to which we shall recur in our next, even British functionaries may be found to give the influence of their office in favor of the slaveholder, is to be feared. It is, therefore, matter of urgent necessity, that the clause should be modified, so as clearly to except fugitive slaves from coming within its operation, under any pretext whatsoever, as the only effectual way of preventing the evils which may otherwise arise from it, and of disappointing the expectations of those whose object in recovering the fugitive is vengeance, not justice.
“Decision of Judges,” in “The Florida Fugitives,”
Anti-Slavery Reporter, April 17, 1843, p. 63.
The official document containing the formal decision of the judges is in the following terms: —
By the Act for giving effect to a treaty, &c., &c., it is enacted, that, upon warrant given under the hand and seal of the officer administering the government of any colony, &c., it shall be lawful for any justice of the peace, or other person having power to commit for trial persons accused of crimes, &c., &c., to examine upon oath any person or persons touching the truth of the charge made against such offenders, and upon such evidence as, according to the laws of that part of her Majesty’s dominions where the supposed offender shall be found, would justify his or her apprehension, &c., if the crime of which he or she shall be so accused had been there committed, it shall be lawful for such justice of the peace, or other person having power to commit as aforesaid, to issue his warrant for the apprehension of such person. Had any such evidence been offered to us, we should of course have considered ourselves bound to receive it, and to issue our warrant for apprehending the offenders. No vivá voce evidence, however, of any kind touching the charge is offered to us, but we are presented with certain indictments, which it is stated to have been found by a jury in Florida. Now it is provided by the second clause of the Act, that, in every such case copies of the depositions upon which the original warrant was granted, certified, &c., may be received as evidence; but we are furnished with no such copies of depositions. An indictment per se can never be received as evidence; it is not enough for us to know that the American jury thought the parties guilty, we ought to know the grounds upon which they thought them guilty. What may constitute the crime of murder in Florida may be very far from doing so according to the British laws, or even to the laws of the norther states of America; by issuing a warrant, then, to apprehend the parties in virtue of these indictments, we might be doing so on evidence which would justify their apprehension by the British law, and should thereby be proceeding in direct violation of the Act. We profess and feel the utmost willingness to carry the Act into effect, and to aid and assist, by every means in our power, in the apprehension of offenders under the treaty; but, being furnished with no kind of evidence against the parties except the indictments alluded to, which neither the Act itself nor accordance with our own laws would justify us in receiving, we must consider ourselves as totally without evidence, and however reluctantly, refuse to issue the warrant.
(Signed) J.C. LEES, Chief Justice.
ROBERT SANDILANDS, Assistant Justice.
P.F. GAHAN, Assistant Justice.