About the year 1826, a Marylander, by the name of Solomon Low, arrested
a fugitive slave in Philadelphia, and took him to the office of an
alderman to obtain the necessary authority for carrying him back into
bondage. Finding the magistrate gone to dinner, they placed the colored
man in the entry, while Mr. Low and his companions guarded the door.
Some of the colored people soon informed Isaac T. Hopper of these
circumstances, and he hastened to the office. Observing the state of
things there, he concluded it would be no difficult matter to give the
colored man a chance to escape. He stepped up to the men at the door,
and demanded in a peremptory manner by what authority they were holding
that man in duress. Mr. Low replied, "He is my slave."
"This is strange conduct," rejoined Friend Hopper. "Who can tell whether
he is thy slave or not? What proof is there that you are not a band of
kidnappers? Dost thou suppose the laws of Pennsylvania tolerate such
proceedings?"
These charges arrested the attention of Mr. Low and his companions, who
turned round to answer the speaker. The slave, seeing their backs toward
him for an instant, seized that opportunity to rush out; and he had run
two or three rods before they missed him. They immediately raised the
cry of "Stop Thief! Stop Thief!" An Irishman, who joined in the
pursuit, arrested the fugitive and brought him back to his master.
Friend Hopper remonstrated with him; saying, "The man is not a thief.
They claim him for a slave, and he was running for liberty. How wouldst
thou like to be made a slave?"
The kind-hearted Hibernian replied, "Then they lied; for they said he
was a thief. If he is a slave, I'm sorry I stopped him. However, I will
put him in as good a condition as I found him." So saying, he went near
the man who had the fugitive in custody, and seized him by the collar
with a sudden jerk, that threw him on the pavement. The slave instantly
started, and ran at his utmost speed, again followed by the cry of "Stop
Thief!" Having run some distance, and being nearly out of breath, he
darted into the shop of a watch-maker, named Samuel Mason, who
immediately closed and fastened his door, so that the crowd could not
follow him. The fugitive passed out of the back door, and was never
afterward recaptured.
The disappointed master brought an action against Samuel Mason for
rescuing his slave. Charles J. Ingersoll and his brother Joseph, two
accomplished lawyers of Philadelphia, conducted the trial for him, with
zeal and ingenuity worthy of a better cause. Isaac T. Hopper was
summoned as a witness, and in the course of examination he was asked
what course members of the Society of Friends adopted when a fugitive
slave came to them. He replied, "I am not willing to answer for any one
but myself."
"Well," said Mr. Ingersoll, "what would _you_ do in such a case? Would
you deliver him to his master?
"Indeed I would not!" answered the Friend. "My conscience would not
permit me to do it. It would be a great crime; because it would be
disobedience to my own dearest convictions of right. I should never
expect to enjoy an hour of peace afterward. I would do for a fugitive
slave whatever I should like to have done for myself, under similar
circumstances. If he asked my protection, I would extend it to him to
the utmost of my power. If he was hungry, I would feed him. If he was
naked, I would clothe him. If he needed advice, I would give such as I
thought would be most beneficial to him."
The cause was tried before Judge Bushrod Washington, nephew of General
Washington. Though a slaveholder himself, he manifested no partiality
during the trial, which continued several days, with able arguments on
both sides. The counsel for the claimant maintained that Samuel Mason
prevented the master from regaining his slave, by shutting his door, and
refusing to open it. The counsel for the defendant replied that there
was much valuable and brittle property in the watchmaker's shop, which
would have been liable to robbery and destruction, if a promiscuous mob
had been allowed to rush in. Judge Washington summed up the evidence
very clearly to the jury, who after retiring for deliberation a
considerable time, returned into court, declaring that they could not
agree upon a verdict, and probably never should agree. They were ordered
out again, and kept together till the court adjourned, when they were
dismissed.
At the succeeding term, the case was tried again, with renewed energy
and zeal. But the jury, after being kept together ten days, were
discharged without being able to agree upon a verdict. Some, who were
originally in favor of the defendant, became weary of their long
confinement, and consented to go over to the slaveholder's side; but one
of them, named Benjamin Thaw, declared that he would eat his Christmas
dinner in the jury-room, before he would consent to such a flagrant act
of injustice.
His patience held out till the court adjourned. Consequently a third
trial became necessary; and the third jury brought in a verdict in favor
of the watchmaker.
The expenses of these suits were estimated at seventeen hundred dollars.
Solomon Low was in limited circumstances; and this expenditure in
prosecuting an innocent man was said to have caused his failure soon
after.