TRUMBULL COUNTY OHIO - BIO: Oberlin-Wellington Rescue Trial, continued (pub. 1925)
***************************************************************************
OHGENWEB NOTICE:  All distribution rights to this electronic data are
reserved by the submitter.  Reproduction or re-presentation of copyrighted
material will require the permission of the copyright owner.
***************************************************************************
File contributed for use on the Trumbull County Pages by
Margaret Strickland 
margstri@bmi.net
August 28, 2001
***************************************************************************

Subj: [OHTRUMBU] Continuation of Oberlin-Wellington Rescue Trial, 
Part 2, History of Ohio, 1925
Date: 8/31/2001 12:11:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:    margstri@bmi.net (Margaret Strickland)
To:    OHTRUMBU-L@rootsweb.com



This is for Carole V. who wanted to know what happened at the trial of the
Oberlin-Wellington Rescue of John Price.

The Oberlin-Wellington Rescue - Volume II,  pages 224 - 231:
Continuing on Page 225 -

The friends of the men on trial for violating the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850
complained of the partisan spirit manifest in the impaneling of the jury.
The partisan clerk, it was claimed, submitted the names of forty citizens
from which to choose twelve jurors.  Ten of these sympathized politically
with the defendants while thirty sympathized with the court.  The ten were
immediately stricken off by the district attorney and the defense allowed
their choice of the remaining thirty.

The jury chosen and charged, the examination of witnesses commenced April 6,
1859, and contiinued until noon of the seventh day.  In the afternoon Judge
George Bliss opened for the Government in a speech of two and one-half
hours, concluding with the statement:

"People around Oberlin think so little of their government and the statues
of the Federal Government, when they interfere with their sympathies with
negro women and men, that they consider their violation a good joke.  Is it
right any people should impugn the laws of the land, knowing no law but
their own consciences?  This is a serious question.  Any jury of undebauched
minds will execute the statues in the same faith as in any civil or criminal
case under statute law."

Mr. Riddle immediately followed for the defense.  From the opening of the
arguments the courtroom was crowded to its capacity and the sympathy of the
auditors was strongly for the men on trial.  The address of Mr. Riddle
continued through part of the afternoon of the seventh day and until near
the close of the eighth.  In the midst of his plea he said:

"I have nothing to do with enticing slaves nor sympathy with those who do;
but if a fugitive comes to me in his flight from slavery and is in need of
food and clothing and shelter and rest and comfort and protection and means
of further flight --if he needs any or all the gentle charities which a
Christian man may render to any human being under the circumstances, so help
me the great God in my extremest need, he shall have them all."

This eloquent outburst was greeted with cheers and long continued applause
by the spectators, followed by a protest against  "the disturbance" from the
district attorney.

Judge Spalding addressed the court and jury for almost an entire day in
behalf of the accused rescuers, closing with an arraignment of the Fugitive
Slave Law of 1850.  Turning to the judge he said in conclusion:

"I hold that so glaringly unjust a decision as the affirmation of the
constitutionality of this act can bind no one; and had I the distinguised
honor to occupy the seat which is so eminently filled by your honor, full
long should I hesitate before I pronounced that to be law which so clearly
contravenes the solemn compact of the Constitution and the superior
Ordinance of 1787. * * *I should feel bound to pronounce the fugitive law of
1850 utterly unconstitutional, without force and void; though in thus doing
I should risk impeachment before the Senate of my country; and, Sir, should
such an impeachment work my removal from office, I should proudly embrace it
as a greater honor than has yet fallen to the lot of any judicial officer of
these United States."

District Attorney Belden in opeing the final argument stated that he
scarcely knew whether to address "the court, the jury or the audience."
"For three days," he said, "the crowd has been addressed, not the court, not
the jury."  He was especially severe on the indicted men from Oberlin.
"Here," said he, "are the saints of Oberlin, Peck, Plumb, Fitch, to whom
should be added saints Spalding and Riddle and sub-saint Bushnell -- all
saints of the Higher Law."  He deprecated the disposition to treat with
contempt the constitution and the statutes enacted under it.  After
reviewing the evidence, he asked the jury to bring in a verdict in
accordance with the facts and the law of the land.  At one or two points in
his address the audience gave evidence that it did not approve his line of
argument.  The sentiment of those who crowded the courtroom was throughout
the trial; strongly with the accused.

The judge then charged the jury who retired and soon brought in a verdict of
guilty against Bushnell, who was the only prisoner thus far on trial.

Langton was next tried.  There were lengthy addressess by the officers of
the United States Government and by Griswold and Backus for the defense.

Attorney Griswold in opening his argument said:
"I quite agree with the district attorney in the desire expressed by him
that this case should be tried on its own merits and without reference to
any outside influences.  It is manifest, however, that this is a case of
peculiar interest --that considerable excitement has attended this
prosecution and that this case has become and still is a matter of much
public remark and comment.  I doubt not that the novelty of this prosection
has in part contributed to this; for although we live in district containing
over 1, 000,000 inhabitants and not a day's journey distant from a large
extent of slave territory, yet this is the second case which has ever
occurred of a prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Act of 1850
or that of 1793."

Charles Langston, the defendant, was colored.  In calling attention to this
fact Mr. Griswold made the following statement of the disadvantages of his
client in appearing before a court of justice and begged that he should not,
because of his color, be subject to punishment unwarranted by law.  In
asking this, he said in part:

"My client can have no jury of his race and color, of those who are his
peers.  Not only is he an alien, but in the view of the law which governs
this court he is an out cast.  He has no equality, no rights, except as
being amenable to the penal statues. * * * In view, therefore, of this
misfortune of his birth -- of his color and condition--that he is one of the
outcast race----that he has no other right but that of being punished, I ask
you the more carefully to consider his case and give him a fair and
impartial hearing."

Attorney Backus followed in general the line of argument outlined by
Griswold.  He did not ask that the law under which his client was tried (the
Act of 1850) be declared unconstitutional.  He contended that under that law
an impartial consideration of the testimony would acquit his client.  He
spoke at length and made an exhaustive analysis of the testimony.  The
evidence against Langston was not very strong and his conduct on the day of
the rescue exhibiited self restraint and respect for the law as well as
sympathy for the captive.

The jury pronounced Langston guilty.  When asked whether he had anything to
say why sentence should not be passed, he answered in a speech that made a
profound impression and must stand as one of the most interesting exhibits
of this remarkable trial.  Langston was well educated and his speech, which
was dignified and restrained, was at the same time an impassioned protest
against the injustice inflicted upon his race.  In a very direct appeal to
the district judge, he said:

"In view of all the facts I say, that If ever again a man is seized near me,
and is about to be carried Southward as a slave, before any legal
investigation has been had, I shall hold it to be my duty, as I held it that
day, to secure for him, if possible, a legal inquiry into the character of
the claim by which he is held.  And I go farther; I say that if it is
adjudged illegal to procure even such an investigation, then we are thrown
back upon those last defences of our rights, which cannot be taken from us,
and which God gave us that we need not be slaves.  I ask your Honor, while I
say this, to place yourself in my situation, and you will say with me, that
if your brother, if your friend, if your wife, if your child, had been
seized by men who claimed them as fugitives, and the law of the land forbade
you to ask any investigation, and precluded the possibilty of an y legal
protection or redress -- then you will say with me, that you would not only
demand the protection of the law, but you would call in your neighbors and
your friends, and would ask them to say with you, that these your friends
could not be taken into slavery.

"And now I thank you for this leniency, this indulgence, in giving a man
unjustly condemned, by a tribunal before which he is declared to have no
rights, the privilege of speaking in his own behalf.  I know that it will do
nothing toward mitigating your sentence, but it is a privilege to be allowed
to speak, and I thank you for it."

In picturing the plight of his race, Langston said:
"There is not a spot in this wide country, not even by the altars of God,
nor in the shadow of the shafts that tell the imperishable fame and glory of
the heroes of the Revolution; no, nor in the old Phildelphia Hall, where any
colored man may dare to ask mercy of a white man.  Let me stand in that
hall, and tell a United States marshal that my father was a Revolutionary
soldier; that he served under Lafayette and fought through the whole war;
and that he always told me that he fought for my freedom as much as for his
own; and he would sneer at me, and clutch me with his bloody fingers, and
say he had a right to make me a slave!  And when I appeal to Congress, they
say he has a right to make me a slave; when I appeal to the people, they say
he has a right to make me a slave, and when I appeal to your Honor, your
Honor says he has a right to make me a slave, and if any man, white or
black, seeks an investigation of that claim, they make themselves amenable
to the pains and penalties of the Fugitive Slave Act for black men who have
no rights, which white men are bound to respect."

Continued in Part 3 tomorrow.  The trial actually concluded about July 6,
1859.  It took them 7 days to pick the jury.  Enjoy!
Margaret Strickland
Walla Walla, WA



==============================