CLAIMED AS A FUGITIVE SLAVE UNDER THE FUGITIVE SLAVE-LAW AFTER HAVING
LIVED IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR MORE THAN TWENTY YEARS.
Scarcely had the infamous statute been in existence six months, ere the
worst predictions of the friends of the slave were fulfilled in
different Northern States. It is hardly too much to say, that
Pennsylvania was considered wholly unsafe to nine-tenths of her colored
population. The kidnapper is fully shown in the case of Rachel and
Elizabeth Parker as he appeared on the soil of Pennsylvania, doing his
vile work in the dead of night, entering the homes of unprotected
females and children, therefore:
The case of Euphemia Williams will serve to represent the milder form of
kidnapping in open day, in the name of the law, by professed Christians
in the city of Brotherly Love, and the home of William Penn.
February 6, 1851, Euphemia Williams, the mother of six children, the
youngest at the breast, was arrested in the upper part of the city
(Philadelphia), and hurried before Edward D. Ingraham, a United States
commissioner, upon the charge of being a fugitive from labor. She was
claimed by William T.J. Purnell, of Worcester county, Maryland, who
admitted that she had been away from him for twenty-two years, or since
1829. Her offspring were born on the soil of Pennsylvania, and the
eldest daughter was seventeen years of age.
Euphemia was living in her own house, and had been a member of church,
in good and regular standing, for about seventeen years, and was about
forty years of age. When the arrest was made, Euphemia had just risen
from her bed, and was only partly dressed, when a little after daylight,
several persons entered her room, and arrested her. Murder! murder! was
cried lustily, and awakened the house. Her children screamed lamentably,
and her eldest daughter cried "They've got my mother! they've got my
mother!" "For God's sake, save me," cried Euphemia, to a woman in the
second story, who was an eye-witness to this monstrous outrage. But
despite the piteous appeals of the mother and children, the poor woman
was hastened into a cab, and borne to the marshall's office.
Through the vigilance of J.M. McKim and Passmore Williamson, a writ of
habeas corpus returnable forthwith was obtained at about one o'clock.
The heart-broken mother was surrounded by five of her children, three of
whom were infants. It was a dark and dreadful hour. When her children
were brought into the room where she was detained, great drops of sweat
standing on her face plainly indicated her agony.
By mutual arrangement between the claimants and the prisoner's counsel
the hearing was fixed for the next day, at the hour of three o'clock.
According to said arrangement, at three o'clock Euphemia was brought
face to face with her claimant, William T.J. Purnell. The news had
already gone out that the trial would come off at the time fixed; hence
a multitude were on hand to witness the proceedings in the case. The
sympathy of anti-slavery ladies was excited, and many were present in
the court-room to manifest their feelings in behalf of the stricken
woman. The eloquent David Paul Brown (the terror of slave-hunters) and
William S. Pierce, Esqrs., appeared for Euphemia, R.C. McMurtrie, Esq.,
for the claimant.
Mr. McMurtrie in the outset, arose and said, that it was with extreme
regret that he saw an attempt to influence the decision of this case by
tumult and agitation. The sympathy shown by so many friendly ladies, was
not a favorable sign for the slave-holder. Notwithstanding, Mr.
McMurtrie said that he would "prove that Mahala, sometimes called Mahala
Purnell, was born and bred a slave of Dr. George W. Purnell, of
Worcester county, Maryland, who was in the habit of hiring her to the
neighbors, and while under a contract of hiring, she escaped with a boy,
with whom she had taken up, belonging to the person who hired her." The
present claimant claimed her as the administrator of Dr. George W.
Purnell.
In order to sustain this claim many witnesses and much positive swearing
were called forth. Robert F. Bowen, the first witness, swore that he
knew both Mahala and her master perfectly well, that he had worked as a
carpenter in helping to build a house for the latter, and also had hired
the former directly from her owner.
Definite time and circumstances were all harmoniously fixed by this
leading witness. One of the important circumstances which afforded him
ground for being positive was, as he testified on cross-examination,
that he was from home at a camp-meeting (when she run away); "our
camp-meetings," said the witness, "are held in the last of August or the
first of September; the year I fix by founding it upon knowledge; the
year before she ran away, I professed religion; I have something at home
to fix the year; she was with me a part of a year. I hired her for the
year 1848 as a house servant; I hired her directly from Dr. George W.
Purnell. When she ran away I proceeded after her. I advertised, in
Delaware in written advertisements, in Georgetown, Milford and
Millsborough, and described her and the boy; her general features. I
have not the advertisement and can't tell how she was described; Dr.
George Purnell united with me in the advertisement. I followed her to
Delaware City; that's all I have done since, about inquiring after them.
I came, after twenty-two years' absence, to seek my own rights, and as
an evidence for my friend. I have not seen her more than once since she
ran away, until she was arrested; I saw her two or three times in court.
I saw her first in a wretched-looking room, at Fifth and Germantown
Road; it was yesterday morning; it was the evening before at Congress
Hall; I arrived here last Tuesday a week; a man told me where she
was"--"I beg the court,"--here Mr. McMurtrie interposed an objection to
his mentioning the person. The court, however, said the question could
be put.
_Witness_.--I was pledged not to tell the name; the person signed her
name Louisa Truit; the information was got by letter; the reason I did
not tell, because I thought she might be murdered; I have not the
letters, and can't tell the contents; the letter that I received
required a pledge that I would not tell: I was directed to send my
letter to the post-office without any definite place; the representative
of Louisa Truit was a man; I saw him in Market street between Third and
Fourth, at Taylor and Paulding's store, in the course of last week; I
was brought into contact with the representative of Louisa by
appointment in the letter, to get the information; I never heard him
tell his name; he was neither colored nor white; we call them with us
mixed blood; (I should take you to be colored, said the witness to Mr.
Brown.) I suppose he lives somewhere up there; I saw him at my room the
next morning; I did not learn from him who wrote the letter; he did not
describe the person of the woman in the letter written to me, only her
general appearance; Purnell said he burnt the letter.
Mr. Brown demanded the letter, or the proof of its destruction.
I never wrote myself, but my friend, Mr. Henry did; he said so; I never
received a letter; it was written to Robert J. Henry; part of the letter
was written to me, but not directed to me; the Louisa Truit, who wrote,
stated, that for the information he wanted $100 for one of the
fugitives; he was referred to the store of Taylor & Paulding, and Mr.
Henry would meet him there; when I got to the store, some of the concern
let Mr. Henry know that a man wanted to see him; I heard this at the
store; the man was there; he was a mulatto man, middle-aged, and
middling tall; he is not here, that I know of; can't tell when I last
saw him. His name I understood to be Gloucester.
Under the severe cross-examination that the witness had been subjected
to under D.P. Brown, he became very faint, and called for water. Large
drops of sweat stood upon his forehead, and he was obliged to sit down,
lest he should fall down. "Take a seat," said Mr. Brown tauntingly, "and
enjoy yourself, while I proceed with my interrogations." But the witness
was completely used up, and was allowed to withdraw to another room,
where fresh air was more plentiful. The cause of the poor slave woman
was greatly strengthened by this failure.
Another witness, named Zachariah Bowen, for the claimants, swore
positively that he knew the prisoner well, that she had been hired to
his brother for three years by Dr. Purnell, whose slave she was; also he
swore that he knew her parents, who were slaves to the said Doctor P.;
that he last saw her in 1827, etc. On cross-examination he swore thus:
"I last saw her in 1827, she was about sixteen or seventeen; she was
about an ordinary size, not the smallest size, nor the largest; she was
neither thick nor thin; there was nothing remarkable in her more than is
common; nothing in her speech; she was about the same color as the woman
here; I never saw a great deal of change in a nigger, from sixteen to
thirty-five or forty, sometimes they grow fatter, and sometimes leaner.
As to recognizing her in Philadelphia, he had not the slightest
difficulty. He went on to swear, that he first saw her in a cab, in the
city; I knew her yesterday; if you could see the rest of the family you
could pick her out yourself in thirty: I knew her by her general favor,
and have no particular mark; I would not attempt to describe features;
her favor is familiar to me; I never saw any marks upon her."
Here Mr. Brown said he would not examine this witness further until he
had concluded the examination of the witness, who had become sick. The
court then adjourned till nine o'clock the next morning.
The avenues to the court were filled with anxious persons, and in the
front and rear of the state house the crowd was very great.
The next morning, at an early hour, the court-room, and all the avenues
to it were densely crowded by people interested in behalf of the woman
whose case was under trial. A large number of respectable ladies formed
a part of the large gathering.
Robert F. Bowen, the witness, who became sick, was recalled.
_Witness_.--"I saw the colored person, who gave the information, the
next evening; after I saw him in Market street, at Congress Hall, in our
room; the gentleman who keeps the hotel we did not wish to place under
any responsibility, as he might be accused of carrying on the business.
(Of kidnapping, suggested Mr. Brown.) No, said witness, that is what you
call it; the woman would have run away if it had gone out; I heard his
name was Gloucester, that gave the information; I saw him three times;
once on the street; I have never been in his house; I have been to a
house where I heard he lived; I gave a pledge not to disclose the
matter; I made a personal pledge to Gloucester in our room last week at
Congress Hall; he said he was afraid of being abused by the population
of his own color for telling that this girl run away from Dr. Purnell; I
understood that Louisa Truit was Gloucester's wife."
Under this searching cross-examination, Mr. Brown constrained him not
only to tell all and more than he knew in favor of his friend, the
claimant, but wrung from him the secrets which he stood pledged never to
disclose.
_Witness_.--"I know no marks; she was in the condition of a married
woman when she left me; it was the particular favor of her father and
mother that made me recognize her; nothing else; she was pretty well
built for her size."
While this witness remembered every thing so accurately occurring in
relation to the life and escape of the girl of sixteen, and was prepared
to swear to her identity simply "by her favor," as he termed it, he was
found sadly deficient in memory touching the owner, whom he had known
much longer, and more intimately than he had the girl, as will be seen
from the following facts in this witness' testimony:
_Witness_.--"I don't know when Dr. P. died; I can't tell the year; I
should suppose about fourteen years ago; I was at the funeral, and
helped to make his coffin; it was in the fall, I think; it was after the
camp-meeting I spoke of; at that time I went regularly, but not of late;
I have no certain recollection of the year he died; I kept a record of
the event of my conversion, and have referred to it often. It has been a
reference every year, and perhaps a thousand times a year; it was in the
Bible, and I was in the habit of looking into it; I was in the habit of
turning over the leaves of this precious book; I think it was eighteen
years ago; can't say I'm certain; can't say it was more than twelve
years; Dr. P. left six children; two remain in our country, and one in
Louisiana, and the one, who is here, making four; I have no interest in
the fugitive; I made no contract in regard to this case; there was an
offer; are you waiting for an answer? the offer was this, that I was to
come on after my fugitive, and if I did not get him they were to pay my
expenses; I hesitated about coming; it was a long time before I made up
my mind; they said they would pay my expenses if I didn't succeed in
getting mine out of prison."
In this way the above witness completely darkened counsel, and added to
the weakness of his cause in a marked degree.