Volume 5 — CHAPTER VI

The Fugitive Slave in Upper Canada

Before the Act of 1793, there was some immigration of slaves fleeing from their masters in the United States. After the Act of 1793, however, a slave by entering Upper Canada became free, whether he was brought in by his master or fled from him. Legislation of the United States in the same year[1] increased the number of those fleeing to the province under this law. Slaves who had effected their escape to what were considered free States were liable to be reclaimed by their masters. Shocking instances of the forcing into renewed slavery of the escaped slave and even of enslaving the free persons of color are on record and there are told worse which never saw the open light of day.

Eli Whitney's invention of the cotton gin about the same time[2] made slaves much more valuable and not only checked the movement toward gradual emancipation but increased the ardor with which the fugitive was pursued. From 1793 the influx of fugitive slaves into the province never quite ceased. The War of 1812 saw former slaves in the Canadian militia fighting against their former masters and Canada as an asylum of freedom became known in the South by mysterious but effective means. "As early as 1815 negroes were reported crossing the Western Reserve to Canada in great numbers and one group of Underground Railway workers in Southern Ohio is stated to have passed on more than 1000 fugitives before 1817."[3]

It is not proposed here to give an account of the celebrated Underground Railway. It is sufficient to say that it was the cause of hundreds of slaves reaching the province.[4] Some slaves escaped by their own efforts in what can fairly be called a miraculous way. No more dramatic or thrilling tales were ever told than could be told by some of these refugees. Some having been brought by their masters near to the Canadian boundary then clandestinely or by force effected a passage. Some came from far to the South, guided by the North Star. Many were assisted by friends more or less secretly. These refugees joined settlements with other people of color freeborn or freed in the western part of the Peninsula, in the counties of Essex and Kent and elsewhere.[5] Some of them settled in other parts of the province, either together or more usually sporadically. Toronto received many. These were superior to most of their race, for none but those with more than ordinary qualities could reach Canada.[6]

The masters of runaway slaves did not always remain quiet when their slaves reached this province. Sometimes they followed them in an attempt to take them back. There are said to have been a few instances of actual kidnapping. There were some of attempted kidnapping. Most of these are merely traditional but at least one is well authenticated.[7]

In May, 1830, a young man with finely chiselled features, bright hazel eyes, apparently a quadroon or octoroon applied for service at the house of Charles Baby, "the old Baby mansion in the ... historical town of Sandwich" in Upper Canada on the Detroit River. He said he had escaped from slavery in Kentucky, had arrived on the previous evening at Detroit and had crossed the river to Canada as quickly as possible. He had been a mason but understood gardening and attending to horses and had other accomplishments. He was engaged and proved a satisfactory servant "respectful, cleanly, capable, lithe and active as a panther." His former master came from Kentucky and reclaimed him after the lapse of six months. The recognition was mutual and immediate. The Kentuckian, offered $2000 to Baby for the return of Andrew his former slave, but the offer was indignantly refused. It turned out that Andrew had taken his master's favorite horse to assist him in his flight but had turned it loose after riding it some twenty-five miles. Whether for this reason or for some other, the Kentuckian did not appeal for the extradition of Andrew[8] but determined to use violence.

A short time afterwards five desperadoes from Detroit attempted to kidnap Andrew while the family were at Church, but they were successfully resisted by Andrew and Charles Baby until the service was over and the people were seen hastening home. The would-be kidnappers made their escape across the river. Finding it dangerous to keep Andrew so near the border, the neighbors took up a subscription and he was sent by stage to York (Toronto). This place he reached in safety. "He made good" and lived a respectable and useful life undisturbed by any fear of Kentucky vengeance.[9]

The law as to such attempts was authoritatively stated in 1819 by John Beverley Robinson, Attorney General of Upper Canada, afterwards Sir John Beverley Robinson, Bart, Chief Justice of Upper Canada. The opinion will be given in his own words:[10]

"In obedience to Your Excellency's comments I have perused the accompanying letter from G. C. Antrobus Esquire, His Majesty's charge d'affaires at the Court of Washington and have attentively considered the question referred to me by Your Excellency thereupon—namely—"Whether the owners of several Negro Slaves who have fled from the United States of America and are now resident in this Province can be permitted to come hither and obtain possession of their property, and whether restitution of such Negroes can be made by the interposition of the government of this Province" and I beg to express most respectfully my opinion to your Excellency that the Legislature of this Province having adopted the Law of England as the rule of decision in all questions relative to property and civil rights, and freedom of the person being the most important civil right protected by those laws, it follows that whatever may have been the condition of these Negroes in the Country to which they formerly belonged, here they are free—For the enjoyment of all civil rights consequent to a mere residence in the country and among them the right to personal freedom as acknowledged and protected by the Laws of England in cases similar to that under consideration, must notwithstanding any legislative enactment that may be thought to affect it, with which I am acquainted, be extended to these Negroes as well as to all others under His Majesty's Government in this Province. The consequence is that should any attempt be made by any person to infringe upon this right in the persons of these Negroes, they would most probably call for, and could compel the interference of those to whom the administration of our Laws is committed and I submit with the greatest deference to Your Excellency that it would not be in the power of the Executive Government in any manner to restrain or direct the Courts or Judges in the exercise of their duty upon such an application."[11]

Then came a number of applications for the return of runaway slaves cloaked under criminal charges, the pretence being made that they had committed some crime and that it was desired to bring them to trial and punishment. There can be no doubt that in the absence of some constitutional provision every country has the right to keep out criminals and, if they have entered the country, to hand them over to the authorities of the country whence they came; but the rules of international law have never gone so far as to make it obligatory on any country to send away immigrant criminals even if demanded by their former country. It has always been the theory in Upper Canada that the Governor had the power independently of statute or treaty to deliver up alien refugees charged with crimes.[12] This was not wholly satisfactory and the legislature took the matter up and passed an act governing such cases, February 13th, 1833,[13] providing for the apprehension of fugitive offenders from foreign countries, and delivering them up to justice. This provides that on the requisition of the executive of any foreign country the governor of the province on the advice of his executive council may deliver up any person in the province charged with "Murder, Forgery, Larceny or other crime which if committed within the province would have been punishable with death, corporal punishment, the pillory, whipping or confinement at hard labour." The person charged might be arrested and detained for inquiry, but the act was permissive only and the delivery up was at the discretion of the Governor-in-Council.

It was under this act that the extradition of Thornton Blackburn was sought but finally refused. The case was this: Two persons of color named Blackburn, a man and his wife, were claimed as slaves on behalf of some person in the State of Kentucky. They were arrested in Detroit in 1833 and examined before a magistrate, who, in accordance with the law of the United States, made his certificate and directed them to be delivered over as the personal property of the claimant in Kentucky. The sheriff took them into custody but when one of them was on the point of being removed from the prison to be restored to his owner, he was violently rescued and directed across the river into Canada. On the day before the rescue of Thornton Blackburn his wife eluded the jailer in disguise and escaped to Canada.

The Upper Canadian Government was, therefore, called upon to return these prisoners to the United States. Upon examining the record in the case, however, the Attorney General of Upper Canada in reply to the Governor for information in the case, advised that the so-called offences of Thornton Blackburn in trying to effect his own escape from persons seeking to return him to slavery could not be construed as rioting or rescuing a prisoner from an officer of the law as had been set forth in the requisition papers from the Michigan authorities and certainly could not be applied to Thornton Blackburn's wife who, as the evidence showed, had taken no part at all in the rescue.

The council[14] was thereafter called upon to consider the question whether, if a similar charge had been committed in Canada, the offenders would be liable to undergo any of the punishments provided for in the act passed at the session of the Canadian Legislature in 1833. The Attorney General[15] was of the opinion that had the government been confined to the official requisition that had accompanied it, he might have been warranted in delivering up these persons inasmuch as there was evidence on which, according to the terms of the Canadian law, a magistrate would have been warranted in apprehending and committing for trial persons charged with riot, forcible rescue and assault and battery. The Attorney General believed, however, that the Governor and the Council were not confined to such evidence since, though limited in their authority to enforcing the provisions of the act against fugitives from foreign States, on being satisfied that the evidence would warrant the commitment for trial, yet in coming to that conclusion, they were bound to hear not ex parte evidence alone but matter explanatory to guide their judgment; for even with the authority so to do, they were not required to deliver up any prisoner so charged, if for any reason they deemed it inexpedient so to do.

The conclusion of the Attorney General, therefore, was that Blackburn and his wife were not charged with any of the offences enumerated in the statute of Canada and that the Governor and Council were not authorized by its provisions to send them out of the province. He said, moreover: "It has not escaped our attention as a peculiar feature in this case that two of the persons whom the Government of this Province is requested to deliver up are persons recognized by the Government of Michigan as slaves and that it appears upon these documents that if they should be delivered up they would by the laws of the United States be exposed to be forced into a state of slavery from which they had escaped two years ago when they fled from Kentucky to Detroit; that if they should be sent to Michigan and upon trial be convicted of the riot and punished they would after undergoing their punishment be subject to be taken by their masters and continued in a state of slavery for life, and that, on the other hand, if they should never be prosecuted, or if they should be tried and acquitted, this consequence would equally follow.

The next case was not so happy in its result. It caused much excitement at the time and is not yet forgotten. Solomon Mosely or Moseby, a Negro slave, came to the province across the Niagara River from Buffalo which he had reached after many days travel from Louisville, Kentucky. His master followed him and charged him with the larceny of a horse which the slave took to assist him in his flight. That he had taken the horse there was no doubt and as little that after days of hard riding he had sold it. The Negro was arrested and placed in the Niagara Gaol. A prima facie case was made out and an order sent for his extradition.[16]

The people of color of the Niagara region made the Mosely case their own and determined to prevent his delivery up to the American authorities to be taken to the land of the free and the home of the brave, knowing that there for him to be brave meant torture and death, and that death alone could set him free. Under the leadership of Herbert Holmes, a yellow man[17] a teacher and preacher, they lay around the jail night and day to the number of from two to four hundred to prevent the prisoner's delivery up. At length the deputy sheriff with a military guard brought out the unfortunate man shackled to a wagon from the jail yard, to go to the ferry across the Niagara River. Holmes and a man of color named Green grabbed the lines. Deputy Sheriff McLeod gave the order to fire and charge. One soldier shot Holmes dead and another bayoneted Green, so that he died almost at once. Mosely, who was very athletic leaped from the wagon and made his escape. He went to Montreal and afterward to England, finally returning to Niagara, where he was joined by his wife, who also escaped from slavery.

An inquest was held on the bodies of Holmes and Green. The jury found "justifiable homicide" in the case of Holmes. "Whether justifiable or unjustifiable" there was not sufficient evidence before the jury to decide in the case of Green. The verdict in the case of Holmes was the only possible verdict on the admitted facts. Holmes was forcibly resisting an officer of the law in executing a legal order of the proper authority. In the case of Green the doubt arose from the uncertainty whether he was bayoneted while resisting the officer or after Mosely had made his escape. The evidence was conflicting and the fact has never been made quite clear. No proceedings were taken against the deputy sheriff; but a score or more of the people of color were arrested and placed in prison for a time. The troublous times of the Mackenzie Rebellion came on and the men of color were released, many of them joining a Negro militia company which took part in protecting the border.

The affair attracted much attention in the province and opinions differed. While there were exceptions on both sides, it may fairly be said that the conservative and government element reprobated the conduct of the blacks in the strongest terms, being as little fond of mob law as of slavery, and that the radicals including the followers of Mackenzie, looked upon Holmes and Green as martyrs in the cause of liberty. That Holmes and Green and their followers violated the law there is no doubt; but so did Oliver Cromwell, George Washington and John Brown. Every one must decide for himself whether the occasion justified in the courts of Heaven an act which must needs be condemned in the courts of earth.[18]

It was, however, only when the alleged crime was recent and followed up promptly that the rigid rule of extraditing slaves accused of crime was applied. A case which came before the Executive Council a few days after Mosely's is a good illustration of the care taken in such cases. Jesse Happy, a slave in Kentucky, had made his escape to Canada, stealing a horse with which he outran his pursuers. Knowing the indisposition of the Canadian authorities to return fugitives from slavery, the Governor of Kentucky undertook to have this fugitive extradited on the ground that he was charged with a felony in that commonwealth. It appeared that the real object of the application from Kentucky was not so much to bring Happy to trial for the alleged felony as to reduce him again to a state of slavery. In the report of the Attorney General reference was made to an application for extradition in a case in which the offence had been recently committed, and because of this fact the requisition was honored. In the case of Jesse Happy, however, the alleged offence had been committed four years prior to making an effort to have him extradited. No process had been issued in the State of Kentucky nor had any steps been taken to punish him for felony. It was suggested, therefore, that the real object of this apprehension was to give him up to his former owners and to deprive him of the personal liberty secured to him by the laws of Canada.

As the delivery of the slave under these circumstances would subject him to a double penalty, the one of being punished for the crime and the other of being returned to a state of slavery even if he should be acquitted, the Canadian authorities were in a dilemma; for punishment of the felony was in strict accordance with the statutes of Canada whereas the enslavement of the fugitive was in direct opposition to the genius of its institutions and the spirit of its laws. Yet as the council[19] could not take the position that because a man happened to be a fugitive slave he should escape the consequences of crime committed in a foreign country to which a free man would be amenable, action was suspended so as to give the accused time to furnish affidavits of the facts set forth in the petition on his behalf, and not wishing to make of this a precedent without the support of the highest authority, the matter was submitted to the Government in England with a request for their views upon this case as a matter of general policy.[20]

Lord Palmerston having had the matter brought to his attention by Lord Glenelg, Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, recognized its very great importance. He accordingly had it submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. The opinion of these officers Sir John Campbell and Sir Robert Mousey Rolfe appears from a letter from W.T.H. Fox Strangeways, Parliamentary Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed February 25, 1838, to Sir George Gray of the Colonial Department. This officer said:

"I have received and laid before Viscount Palmerston your Letter to me of the 6 December 1837 with its accompanying copy of a Dispatch from Sir Francis Head, in which that officer requests Instructions for his guidance, in the general case of Fugitive Slaves who, having escaped to Canada may be demanded from the Canadian Authorities by the Authorities of the United States on the plea of their having committed crimes in the last mentioned Country and in the particular case of Jesse Happy, who having escaped to Upper Canada more than four years ago, had been demanded from the Lieut. Governor of that Province, upon the ground of a charge of Horse Stealing.

"These two questions have by direction of Lord Palmerston been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, and I am directed by his Lordship to state to you the opinion of these officers for the information of Lord Glenelg.

"The Law Officers report upon the general question, that they think that no distinction should in the case contemplated, be made between the demand for Slaves or for Freemen.

"It is the opinion of the Law Officers that in every case in which there is such Evidence of criminality as, according to the terms of the Canadian Statutes, would warrant the apprehension of the accused Party, if the alleged offence had been committed in Canada, then on the requisition of the Governor of the Foreign State, the accused Party ought to be delivered up, without reference to the question as to whether he is or is not a Slave.

"The Law Officers desire however that it should be distinctly understood, that the Evidence for this Purpose must be evidence taken in Canada, upon which (if false) the Parties making it may be indicted for Perjury.

"The Law Officers remark further on this point that the 3rd Section of the Provincial Statute enables the Governor to refuse to deliver up a Party, whenever special circumstances may render it inexpedient to accede to the demand made to the Governor on such a point.

"The Law Officers, reporting upon the subject of Jesse Happy state that they do not think that there was in that case such evidence of criminality, as, according to the Laws of the Province of Upper Canada would warrant the apprehension of Jesse Happy if the offence charged had been committed in U. Canada.

"The Law Officers indeed go farther, and say that so far as there is any evidence of the Facts, what took place was not Horse Stealing according to the Laws of Upper Canada, but merely an unauthorized use of a horse, without any intention of appropriating it.

"The Law Officers conclude by, stating, that upon these grounds, they are of opinion, that Jesse Happy ought to be set at liberty, and that instructions to that effect should be sent to the Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada."[21]

On the ninth of May Glenelg wrote to Sir George Arthur who succeeded Bond Head as Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada, saying: "With reference to my Dispatch to Sir Francis Bond Head of the 4th December last No 255, I enclose for your information the copy of a letter from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stating the substance of the opinion given by the Law Officers of the Crown in respect to the restitution of Fugitive Slaves who may be demanded from the Government of Upper Canada on the plea of their having committed crimes at the places from which they have fled. In conformity with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown I have to desire that Jessie Happy, the individual with respect to whom this question was raised shall be forthwith set at liberty."

It is impossible not to see that the very stringent rules laid down by the Law Officers of the Crown at Westminster were intended to be in favorem libertatis. Happy was released November 14th, 1837, and so far as appears from the official records no further application was ever made for the extradition of a runaway slave until after 1842. That year the well-known Ashburton Treaty was concluded[22] between Britain and the United States. This by Article X provides that "the United States and Her Britannic Majesty shall, upon mutual requisitions ... deliver up to justice all persons ... charged with murder, or assault with intent to commit murder, or piracy or arson or robbery or forgery or the utterance of forged paper...." Power was given to judges and other magistrates to issue warrants of arrest, to hear evidence and if "the evidence be deemed sufficient ... it shall be the duty of the ... judge or magistrate to certify the same to the proper executive authority that a warrant may issue for the surrender of such fugitive."

It will be seen that this treaty made two important changes so far as the United States was concerned. It made it the duty of the executive to order extradition in a proper case and took away the discretion. It gave the courts jurisdiction to determine whether a case was made out for extradition.[23] These changes made it more difficult in many instances for a refugee to escape; but the courts were astute as ever in finding reasons against the return of slaves.

The case of John Anderson is a well-known one in evidence. He was born a slave in Missouri. As his master was Moses Burton, he was known as Jack Burton. He married a slave woman in Howard County, the property of one Brown. In 1853, Burton sold him to one McDonald living some thirty miles away and his new master took him to his plantation. In September 1853 he was seen near the farm of Brown, when apparently he was visiting his wife. A neighbor, Seneca T.P. Diggs, became suspicious of him and questioned him. As his answers were not satisfactory he ordered his four Negro slaves to seize him, according to the law in the State of Missouri. The Negro fled, pursued by Diggs and his slaves. In his attempt to escape the fugitive stabbed Diggs in the breast and Diggs died in a few hours. Effecting his escape to this province, he was in 1860 apprehended in Brant County, where he had been living under the name of John Anderson, and three local justices of the peace committed him under the Ashburton Treaty. A writ of habeas corpus was granted by the Court of Queen's Bench at Toronto, under which the prisoner was brought before the Court of Michaelmas Term of 1860.

The motion was heard by the full court.[24] Much of the argument was on the facts and on the law apart from the form of the papers, but that was hopeless from the beginning. The law and the facts were too clear, although Mr. Justice McLean thought the evidence defective. The case turned on the form of the information and warrant, a somewhat technical and refined point. The Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, and Mr. Justice Burns agreed that the warrant was not strictly correct, but that it could be amended. Mr. Justice McLean thought it could not and should not be amended.

The case attracted great attention throughout the province, especially among the Negro population. On the day on which judgment was to be delivered, a large number of people of color with some whites assembled in front of Osgoode Hall.[25] While the adverse decision was announced, there were some mutterings of violence but the counsel for the prisoner[26] addressed them seriously and impressively, reminding them "It is the law and we must obey it." The melancholy gathering melted away one by one in sadness and despair.

Anderson was recommitted to the Brantford Jail.[27] The case came to the knowledge of many in England. It was taken up by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society and many persons of more or less note. An application was made to the Court of Queen's Bench of England for a writ of habeas corpus, notwithstanding the Upper Canadian decision, and while Anderson was in jail at Toronto, the court after anxious deliberation granted the writ[28] but it became unnecessary owing to further proceedings in Upper Canada.

In those days the decision of any Court or of any judge in habeas corpus proceedings was not final. An applicant might go from judge to judge, court to court[29] and the last applied to might grant the relief refused by all those previously applied to. A writ of habeas corpus was taken out from the other Common Law Court in Upper Canada, the Court of Common Pleas. This was argued in Hilary Term, 1861, and the court unanimously decided that the warrant of commitment was bad and that the court could not remand the prisoner to have it amended.[30] The prisoner was discharged. No other attempts were made to extradite him or any other escaped slave; and Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation put an end to any chance of such an attempt being ever repeated.[31]

FOOTNOTES: