The recent decision of the Canadian government not to allow
deportation to proceed in the case of Matthew Bullock, a Negro whose
return was asked by the State of North Carolina, has served to recall
to public attention in Canada certain cases occurring during the
period of slavery in the United States when the Canadian courts were
asked to order the return of fugitives. The most famous of these was
the Anderson case tried before the Canadian courts at Toronto, in
1860, interest in which stirred the British provinces from end to end.
The Bullock case, recently decided, has some points of similarity to
the Anderson case, though the circumstances vary greatly. Bullock was
charged with participation in race riots in North Carolina in January
1921. He had made his way to Canada and succeeded in evading the
immigration authorities in entering the country. It was admitted by
the Canadian authorities that he was in the country illegally but in
the final decision it was stated that, as he had conducted himself in
an exemplary manner since entering, he would be allowed to remain. On
behalf of the fugitive it was freely hinted that should he be returned
to North Carolina he would risk being a victim of mob justice. While
this plea doubtless influenced the Canadian immigration authorities,
it could not, of course, be stated as their reason for allowing the
man his freedom.
The Anderson case of 1860, to which so much newspaper reference was
made during the progress of the Bullock case, came just on the eve of
the American Civil War. In some respects it looked to be one of the
last efforts of the slave-owners to secure complete enforcement of the
Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. That measure, so detested by the North,
became a dead letter in many sections by the force of public opinion
but was also weakened by the fact that the fugitive in the North could
soon cross into Canada, if threatened by any sudden enforcement of the
law. An arrest under the Fugitive Slave Law in any northern city was
usually followed by a swift trek into Canada of other Negroes who
feared that they might be the next victims. But what if there could be
found some means of using British law to secure the return of
fugitives from Canada? This appears to have been in the minds of those
who tried to get Anderson out of Canada in 1860. It is difficult to
account, otherwise, for the strenuous efforts that were made to secure
his extradition. That the Missouri slaveholders felt they were
performing something in the nature of a public service by fighting
this case in the Canadian courts, is evidenced by their request that
the State should reimburse them for their outlay.[1]
John Anderson appears to have arrived in Canada in November 1853,
crossing over the Detroit River to Windsor where he stayed with Mrs.
Bibb, mother of Henry Bibb, who was attempting to organize a refugee
settlement not far from that frontier point. Mrs. Laura S. Haviland, a
philanthropic Michigan woman who was doing missionary and educational
work among the fugitives, met him soon after his arrival and learned
his story. She says that he came to her asking that she write a letter
for him. This letter revealed the tragedy in which he had recently
figured and that had caused him to flee to Canada. She had noted the
sadness in his face which indicated the stress through which he had
passed. He told her that to satisfy a debt he had been sold by his
master, Seneca Diggs, and was to be separated from his wife and four
children. Husband and wife pleaded not to be separated but the reply
was that the buyer desired only the man. Later, however, the master
indicated that some other arrangement might be arrived at but the man
was suspicious and armed himself with a dirk. His suspicions were
further aroused when he was told to come to the woods where some trees
were to be chopped and when he noticed that the master had a stout
rope under his coat. The slave kept at a distance from the master
until the latter finally frankly admitted his purpose. The slave
declared that he would never be taken but at this point another man
appeared and Anderson began to run. The slavers followed him for seven
miles and finally had him cornered. Anderson flourished his knife and
threatened to kill the first man who laid hands upon him. All stood
back but Diggs who, with a knife in his hand, rushed at the slave. In
the melee the master was stabbed and the slave escaped into the woods.
That night he saw his wife and family for the last time. The woman
informed him that he had killed his master and that if he were caught
he could expect to be burned alive or chopped to pieces. She urged him
to flee to Canada, and if he arrived there safely, he was to write to
her father who was free. This is the story as he told it to Mrs.
Haviland and it was the letter to his father-in-law that he wished her
to write.
Mrs. Haviland shrewdly suspected that a letter from Canada addressed
to a Negro related to Anderson would not likely reach its destination
and would also give a clue to the fugitive's whereabouts. Accordingly
she dated the letter from Adrian, Michigan, and asked that the reply
be sent there. The answer, which came shortly after, said that
Anderson's wife and four children were being brought to him. Mrs.
Haviland replied to this letter but warned Anderson not to cross the
Detroit River as she suspected a plot. In her message she asked the
party to come to Adrian, Michigan, and inquire for Mrs. Laura
Haviland, a widow, from whom information could be had regarding
Anderson. A few days later a white man called, very clearly a
southerner, and informed her that Anderson's family was in Detroit
staying in the home of a Negro minister named Williams. The visitor
seemed exceedingly anxious to find out where Anderson was and Mrs.
Haviland finally told him that the man was in Chatham and advised that
his family should be sent there. At this the visitor's face reddened
rather noticeably. Mrs. Haviland lost no time in sending a message to
Anderson advising him to leave Chatham. He got out none too soon for
within a few days white men were in Chatham inquiring for him. They
were told that he had gone to Sault Ste. Marie and they followed the
trail there but without success. Finally they disappeared after
leaving with Detroit people power of attorney to arrest Anderson, if
he could ever be decoyed over the river or should be found there.
Mrs. Haviland, in her memoirs, says that after this effort to capture
Anderson as a murderer she wrote a letter to Lord Elgin, the Governor
of the Canadas, setting forth the facts, and that she received this
reply from him: "In case of a demand for William Anderson, he should
require the case to be tried in their British courts; and if twelve
freeholders should testify that he had been a man of integrity since
his arrival in their dominion it should clear him."[2]
There is a rather curious similarity between the latter part of this
statement and the recent decision from Ottawa in the Bullock case,
namely, that as the latter had conducted himself well since entering
the country he should not be deported.
About three years after the events mentioned above, which would be
about 1856, Mrs. Haviland records a meeting with D. L. Ward, a New
Orleans attorney, who said to her: "We are going to have Anderson by
hook or by crook; we will have him by fair means or foul; the South is
determined to have that man."
The whereabouts of Anderson between 1853 and 1859 is not on record.
Probably he lived most of that time in southwestern Ontario where his
own people were most numerous. It is stated that he had worked in
Hamilton and Caledonia. In the fall of 1860 he was working near
Brantford when it came to the ears of a magistrate at Brantford,
Matthews by name, that at some time in the past this Negro had
committed a crime and was a fugitive from the justice of his own
State. Matthews had the Negro arrested and locked him up. It would
appear that he had no evidence of any kind other than rumor. S. B.
Freeman, who defended Anderson later, says that he went to the
Brantford magistrate and made inquiries about the prisoner, being told
that the fugitive was held pending the receipt of necessary evidence.
According to Freeman's charges, which were made publicly in _The
Toronto Globe_ of December 11, 1860, Matthews communicated with
private detectives in Detroit who passed the word on to friends of the
deceased Diggs in Missouri and they promptly applied at Washington for
extradition papers. _The Hamilton Times_ charged that Matthews had
subjected his prisoner to most rigorous prison life for two months,
keeping him ironed, permitting no Negro friends to see him, not even
admitting Rev. Walter Hawkins, the Negro preacher who afterwards
became a bishop.[3] It required very much persuasion on the part of
Freeman, and apparently some threats as well, to induce the Brantford
magistrate to release his prisoner. When let out of jail Anderson went
to Simcoe and was working there when again arrested, this time, it
would appear, on a warrant sworn out by a Detroit man named Gunning.
There are indications in the press reports of the time that the
Brantford magistrate was much aggrieved at his prisoner getting into
other hands and sought to have the case transferred to Brantford,
being aided in this by the county Crown attorney.
In a letter to the _Hamilton Spectator_ Freeman made this charge
against the magistrate: "Mr. Matthews arrested him as having been
guilty of murder without any legal evidence of a murder having been
committed, or, in fact, of any one having been killed by him. And
after he had him in custody he communicated with the authorities for
the necessary evidence."[4]
On November 24 Anderson was brought before the Court of Queen's Bench
consisting of Chief Justice Robinson and Justices Burns and McLean. S.
B. Freeman appeared for the prisoner and Henry Eccles and R. A.
Harrison for the attorney-general. Freeman read the warrant of
committal by William Matthews and the two other Brantford magistrates
who had been associated with him. The evidence was to the effect that
on September 28, 1859 (sic), Anderson was on the estate of Seneca T.
P. Diggs in Howard County, Missouri, and that Diggs, while attempting
with Negro help to arrest Anderson, was stabbed twice and later died.
The question was whether Canada was to administer the slave laws of
Missouri. The counsel for the Crown admitted that Anderson's act, if
committed in Canada, would not be murder.
The Anderson case was practically the last important case to come
before Chief Justice Sir John Beverly Robinson, and around perhaps no
decision of his whole legal career did more excitement center. While
the justices were considering the evidence public meetings were being
held, not only in Toronto but in other Canadian cities. Newspapers
were furiously defending the fugitive and the judgment of the court
was being awaited with tense interest.
It was understood on November 30 that the Chief Justice was ready to
give decision but that he deferred for his associates. On that date
there were special police on duty about the court in fear of an
attempt at rescue by the Negroes and others. _The Globe_ of that date
contended that the question of surrendering the man, being a matter of
a treaty, should have been dealt with by the executive and not by the
courts at all.
"The universal heart and conscience of the people of Canada and of the
British nation will say upon the facts of the case that Anderson is
not a murderer in the sight of God, or under British law," was a part
of its comment editorially upon the case. A day or two later the paper
pointed out the significance of this particular case. If Anderson were
given up, it maintained, "no fugitive slave in Canada is safe on our
soil ... there is not a fugitive in Canada whose extradition may not
be demanded upon evidence sufficient to put the accused upon his
trial."[5]
The court finally gave its judgment on Saturday, December 15. The
papers of the following Monday say, that as the decision was being
given, police stood about the court with muskets and that a company of
Royal Canadian Rifles were also under arms at the Government House.
In its decision the court was not unanimous. The Chief Justice and
Justice Burns favored extradition while Justice McLean dissented. The
biographer of the Chief Justice says of this judgment: "Their decision
was neither in support of nor against slavery but was based entirely
upon the consideration of the treaty existing between the United
States and Canada." The biographer quotes also as follows from an
English contemporary: "These judges, proof against unpopularity and
unswayed by their own bitter hatred of slavery, as well as unsoftened
by their own feelings for a fellow man, in agonizing peril, upheld the
law made to their hands and which they are sworn faithfully to
administer. Fiat justitia. Give them their due. Such men are the
ballast of nations."[6]
Gerrit Smith, the famous abolitionist, was one of those who acted on
behalf of the fugitive, and his plea made a strong impression. He
argued that Anderson was not guilty of murder but at the worst of
homicide, that the Ashburton case did not require the surrender of
fugitives and that in any case Anderson's delivery was a matter for
the English courts to decide.
On the evening of December 19, 1860, a huge mass meeting was held in
St. Lawrence Hall. The mayor of the city presided and the chief
speaker of the evening was John Scoble, the abolitionist.[7] He was
able to throw considerable light upon the exact meaning of the
extradition treaty, having interviewed both Lord Aberdeen and Lord
Brougham on its terms in relation to fugitive slaves at the time that
it was passing through the British Parliament. He was at that time the
secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society of England which had become
alarmed over the possibilities to fugitives in Canada of the
extradition clauses.[8]
Ashburton told him, he said, "that the article in question was no more
designed to touch the fugitive slave than to affect the case of
deserters or parties charged with high treason." Lord Aberdeen stated
that instructions would be sent to the Governor of Canada that in the
case of fugitive slaves great care was to be taken to see that the
treaty did not work their ruin. Sir Charles Metcalfe, Governor of
Canada, was quoted by the speaker as having said that he would never
be a party to wronging fugitives.
In the course of his address Mr. Scoble gave some information about
the arrest of Anderson. He said that he personally went to Brantford
as soon as Anderson was taken up in April and tried to get a writ of
habeas corpus but could get no help from counsel in Brantford. At the
Brantford spring assizes Anderson was released by the judge, since
there was no evidence against him, but was rearrested three days
later. Other speakers at the St. Lawrence Hall gathering were Rev. Wm.
King, M. C. Cameron, Rev. Dr. Willis, Rev. Dr. Burns, Peter Brown and
Rev. Mr. Marling. At the close of the meeting there were cheers for
Anderson and others and groans for Magistrate Matthews.
There was much comment in the Canadian press on the case as a whole
and upon the judgment in particular. _The Montreal Herald_ of December
19, 1860, said: "We hope that the day will never come when the
wretches who traffic in the bodies and souls of their fellow creatures
will be able to say to any British subject, 'And thou also art made
like unto us.'" _The Quebec Mercury_ said: "The judgment of the court
in Anderson's case is one of those infamous prostitutions of judicial
power to political expediency which in this degenerate age have too
frequently polluted the judicial ermine." _The Montreal Witness_ said:
"Such a gigantic wrong cannot exist on the same continent with us
without affecting the people of Canada in one way or another.
Slaveholders long looked at Canada with evil eye. If the slavers get
Anderson back they will execute him before the slaves. It would be
worth hundreds of thousands of dollars to them annually."
Speaking on the evening of December 20 before the St. Patrick's
Literary Society of Montreal, Hon. Thomas D'Arcy McGee condemned the
decision in the Anderson case. "As a fugitive slave has never been
yielded by this province," he said, "I cannot believe that we are
going to take upon ourselves the yoke of that servitude just now. We
have no bonds to break or keep with the 'peculiar institution' of the
south; and the true voice and spirit of this province is that when the
flying slave has once put the roar of Niagara between him and the bay
of the bloodhounds of his master--from that hour, no man shall ever
dream of recovering him as his chattel property."
As soon as the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench was given,
abolitionists in Toronto decided to carry the case to English courts
and did so, securing from the Court of Queen's Bench at Westminster an
order to bring Anderson there. In the meantime the case was carried to
the Court of Common Pleas in Toronto and there on February 16, 1861,
Chief Justice Draper acquitted Anderson, for the following reasons, as
quoted in _The Toronto Leader_: "In the first place, the magistrate's
warrant was defective inasmuch as the words used in the warrant did
not imply the charge of murder, though perhaps expressing more than
manslaughter; secondly, the warrant of commitment was also defective
in not adhering to the words of the treaty."
It would take long to list all the meetings, petitions, resolutions,
and protests that were brought forth by the Anderson case. The
Anti-Slavery Society of Canada, with headquarters in Toronto, was, of
course, active throughout the whole case. Early in January it was
reported that a petition signed by more than 2500 people had been
forwarded from Montreal on behalf of Anderson and from elsewhere in
Canada came similar protests.
With the decision of Chief Justice Draper the Anderson case was closed
and the fugitive disappears. As a result, however, of the unseemly
action of the Brantford magistrate the Canadian law was revised so as
to take from the control of ordinary magistrates jurisdiction as
regards foreign fugitives from justice, leaving such cases with county
judges and police justices.
FRED LANDON.
THE PUBLIC LIBRARY,
LONDON, ONTARIO.