“THE TREASON TRIALS.”
Differences of Opinion Among Counsel for the Government--A
Brilliant Array of Lawyers--Selecting Twelve Men, “Good and True,”
from a Large Venire--The Prisoners Arraigned and Pleas Entered.
In the so-called official report of the Castner Hanway trial, which
involved the final disposition of all the treason cases, it is fitly
stated by the author and editor that “the ability which marked the
trial throughout, the patient attention of the judges, the eloquence
and learning of the Counsel, and the full examination of every matter
of fact and law in any manner involved, gave to the trial a deep and
abiding importance, such as will make its perusal interesting to the
general reader, and of indispensable use to the Legal Profession.”
It is not to be expected, however, that a detailed report of these
proceedings or a presentation of their technical aspect falls within
the scope or prescribed limits of this sketch. Those desirous of
perusing them can get access to Mr. Robbins’ report in many libraries;
lawyers will find the case reported for their special benefit in Vol.
II of Wallace’s Report of Circuit Court Cases for the Third District,
pp. 134-208. The report of Attorney General Brent and the message of
Governor Lowe, in the Maryland State Documents, 1852, constitute an
interesting history of the facts and valuable discussion of the law;
and Mr. Jackson’s reply undoubtedly corrects and modifies some of the
impressions that the complaints of the Marylanders would tend to create.
Even outside of these quasi-official documents there remain signs
that there was some division of counsel, if not conflict of opinion,
among those engaged in the prosecution as to the most expedient
course to take and the more effective remedy to apply to the broken
law. Whatever the private opinion of U. S. District Attorney Ashmead
may have been, his presentation of the case and his entire part in
the trial evinced no lack of preparation or ability and no want of
sincerity in the Government’s cause. He shrank from no responsibility
that his position imposed. He was, moreover, the direct representative
of the Law Department of the Fillmore administration. His chief was
Attorney General John J. Crittenden and Daniel Webster was the premier
of that Cabinet. There was at that time no “Department of Justice” as
now organized; there was simply the office of the Attorney General, and
an investigation of the archives of the Department fails to disclose
anything whatever with respect to the affray or the trials. There is,
however, authority for the statement that the final determination to
prosecute for treason was made by Webster and Crittenden, who concluded
and advised “that even if a conviction were not obtained, the effect
of the trial would be salutary in checking Northern opposition to the
enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.”
Some question of professional etiquette arose between counsel who
appeared for the State of Maryland and those who represented the United
States by direct employment for the Government. Mr. Brent reports that
this was “satisfactorily adjusted in a personal interview” with Mr.
Ashmead. He further says:
“This gentleman, in the presence of the Hon. James Cooper, tendered to
me the position of leading counsel in these trials, which I promptly
declined, on the ground that I never had claimed such precedence
for myself, as well as on grounds of policy and expediency for the
prosecution.
“It was then agreed that the Hon. James Cooper, of Pennsylvania (the
distinguished colleague associated with me for the State of Maryland),
should occupy the position of leading counsel, which he did with
fidelity and signal ability. I will here take occasion to remark that,
however unfortunate the preliminary difficulty between Mr. Ashmead and
myself, and however prejudicial it may have been to the development
of the evidence, by preventing that early interchange of views and
information, which was necessary to a thorough preparation of these
important cases, yet I received during the trial every social and
professional courtesy at the hands of that gentleman, and he was at all
times prompt to act upon any suggestion which might be made by either
Mr. Cooper or myself.”
[Illustration: JOHN W. ASHMEAD.
U. S. ATTORNEY WHO CONDUCTED THE PROSECUTION.]
Whatever may have been the nature of their difficulties or the
character of their settlement, there was a good deal of “girding”
during the trial from the defense at the relations of the
various opposing counsel; and there was some recrimination after
the Government’s defeat over the responsibility for what its
representatives thought was a miscarriage of justice. When the lawyers
were finally lined up the record showed these appearances: J. W.
Ashmead, D. A. U. S., G. L. Ashmead and J. R. Ludlow represented the
United States: R. J. Brent, Attorney General of Maryland, James Cooper,
a Senator of the United States for Pennsylvania, and R. M. Lee, of
Philadelphia, appeared as special counsel; Mr. Brent by order of the
Governor of Maryland, of which State Mr. Gorsuch was a citizen; Mr.
Cooper and Lee also private counsel of Mr. Gorsuch’s relatives: For the
prisoner, J. J. Lewis, of West Chester, Th. Stevens, of Lancaster, John
M. Read, T. A. Cuyler and W. A. Jackson, of Philadelphia.
David Paul Brown also sat at the prisoners’ counsel table; he appeared
for Joseph Scarlet, whose case, with that of others, depended on the
result of Hanway’s trial.
Most of these names will be remembered by the general reader as already
eminent or soon to so become. The Ashmeads were notably able lawyers;
Mr. Brent had high professional position; James Cooper was then United
States Senator, from Pennsylvania; Ludlow later became a member of the
Philadelphia judiciary; Lewis of West Chester and Stevens of Lancaster
were leaders of their respective county bars. John M. Read was later to
be a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Theo. A. Cuyler was
long one of the foremost of Philadelphia’s lawyers. Mr. Jackson, junior
counsel and historian of the defense, died Jan. 10, 1857, aged 29, and
after less than six years his promising career ended.
The trial was held in the second story room of old Independence Hall
and sentimentalists speculated as to whether the cause of Law or
Liberty would prevail in a historic building consecrated to both these
vital principles of organized society. It had been refitted for the
occasion with new gas fixtures and special ventilating devices. The
opening day did not attract the concourse that thronged the chamber and
corridors as the trial progressed, but the seating capacity of the room
was fully occupied.
Court opened at 11 A.M. Monday, November 24, 1851. Seventy-eight
jurors answered; and Judge Grier ordered a call of the defaulters
under promise of a $100 fine to those who were in default until next
morning. Jurors called and some missing with one accord then began to
make excuse. Before the session adjourned eighty-one answered and it
appeared that nineteen had been previously excused. Arrangements were
made for reporting the proceedings; there was some discussion over
the impanelling of the jurors, but nobody was disposed to quash or
continue; the prisoner, Castner Hanway, was arraigned and pleaded. The
questions to jurors were framed upon the replies to which challenges
were to be based, and the first juror, David George, was called on the
second day of the trial.
Thence the selection of jurors proceeded until twelve men were secured
satisfactory to both sides. This occupied the Court until Wednesday
evening. Next day being Thanksgiving the trial was adjourned until
Friday morning, the jury selected being accommodated and lodged at the
American Hotel, opposite the old State House.
An essential part of this narrative, in its political and popular
interest, is the personnel of the entire venire of jurors. It is
here given with brief memoranda abstracted from the official report,
indicating what disposition was made of each person called. Where there
are no comments the juror was not called; and the twelve finally sworn
are each marked with a *.
1. Adams, Peter, Farmer, Mohnsville P. O., Berks County.
2. Baldwin, Matthias W., Machinist, 335 Spruce St., Philadelphia.
Founder of Baldwin’s Locomotive Works. Stood aside.
3. Barclay, Andrew C., Gentleman, 147 Arch St., Philadelphia.
Challenged by defendant; had an opinion.
4. Bazley, John T., Gentleman, Doylestown, Bucks County. Challenged by
prisoner.
5. Beck, John, Professor, Lititz, Lancaster Co. Principal of famous
Boys’ School; Excused at Mr. Stevens’ instance because “the school
could not get on without him;” grandfather of Hon. Jas. M. Beck.
6. Bell, Samuel, Gentleman, Reading, Berks County. Associate (lay)
judge and excused.
7. Brady, Patrick, Merchant, 397 Arch St., Philadelphia. Challenged by
prisoner for opinion.
8. Breck, Samuel, Gentleman, Arch St., west of Broad, Philadelphia.
Prominent citizen; aged 81 and deaf; Excused.
9. Brinton, Ferree, Merchant, Belmont P. O., Lancaster Co. Later
associate judge; father-in-law of Judge Wiltbank, of Philadelphia.
Stood aside.
10. Broadhead, Albert G., Farmer, Delaware P. O., Pike Co. Deficient
hearing and frequent headaches; Excused.
11. Brown, John A., Merchant, S.E. Cor. 12th and Chestnut Sts., Phila.
Challenged by prisoner.
12. Brown, Joseph D., Gentleman, 167 Arch St., Philadelphia.
13. Brush, George G., Merchant, Washington, Lancaster Co. A prominent
citizen and Democrat. Challenged by prisoner.
14. Butler, Robert, Clerk, Mauch Chunk, Carbon Co.
15. Cadwalader, George, Gentleman, 299 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.
Excused temporarily. Prominent Philadelphia Democrat. Subsequently
called and challenged by prisoner.
16. Cameron, Simon, Gentleman, Middletown, Dauphin Co. Ex U. S.
Senator. Unwell and temporarily excused.
17. Campbell, Hugh, Merchant, 33 Girard Street, Philadelphia.
18. Clendenin, John, Gentleman, Hoagstown, Cumberland Co. Challenged by
defendant.
19. Cockley, David, Machinist, Lancaster City. Challenged by U. S. for
opinion.
20. Cook, Jonathan, Gentleman, Allentown, Lehigh Co. Challenged for
opinion by defendant.
21. Coolbaugh, Moses W., Farmer, Coolbaugh P. O., Monroe County.
Challenged by prisoner.
22. *Connelly, Thomas, Carpenter, Beaver Meadow, Carbon Co. Accepted
and sworn (3).
23. Cope, Caleb, Merchant, Walnut & Quince Sts., Philadelphia.
Applied for excuse; refused as he was “not over 60.” Recalled and not
answering, fined. Subsequently remitted on account of ill health.
24. *Cowden, James, Merchant, Columbia, Lancaster Co. Stood aside at
first, finally accepted (12).
25. Culbertson, Joseph, Gentleman, Chambersburg, Franklin Co. “Excused
for age, hardness of hearing and vertigo.”
26. Darby, John, Gentleman, Fayetteville, Franklin Co. Enfeebled; deaf;
excused.
27. Davies, Edward, Gentleman, Churchtown, Lancaster Co. Stood aside.
28. Deshong, John O., Gentleman, Chester, Delaware Co. Stood aside.
29. Diller, Solomon, Farmer, New Holland, Lancaster Co. Stood aside.
30. Elder, Joshua, Farmer, Harrisburg, Dauphin Co. Stood aside.
31. Dillinger, Jacob, Gentleman, Allentown, Lehigh Co. Excused because
of “kidney trouble.” Conspicuous Democrat.
32. *Elliot, Robert, Farmer, Ickesburg, Perry Co. Accepted and sworn
(2).
33. Ewing, Robert, Merchant, 446 Walnut St., Philadelphia. Challenged
by defendant.
34. *Fenton, Ephraim, Farmer, Upper Dublin P. O., Montgomery Co. Stood
aside. Subsequently recalled and accepted (11).
35. Fraley, Frederick, Gentleman, 365 Race St., Philadelphia. President
of Schuylkill Navigation Company; Excused temporarily. Conspicuous
citizen. Treasurer Centennial Company in 1876.
36. George, David, Gentleman, Blockley, West Phila. P. O., Philadelphia
Co. Stood aside. Recalled and challenged by U. S.
37. Gowen, James, Gentleman, Germantown, Philadelphia Co. Father of P.
& R. President F. B. Gowen. Challenged by prisoner. Democrat.
38. Grosh, Jacob, Gentleman, Marietta, Lancaster Co. Political friend
of Stevens. Associate (lay) judge, 1842-47. Stood aside.
39. Hammer, Jacob, Merchant, Orwigsburg, Schuylkill Co. Associate (lay)
judge; Excused on account of his wife’s illness.
40. Harper, James, Gentleman, Walnut & Schuylkill Fifth Sts., Phila.
Challenged by prisoner.
41. Hazard, Erskine, Gentleman, Ninth & Chestnut Sts., Philadelphia.
Father-in-law of Samuel Dickson, later one of the leaders of the
Philadelphia bar. Challenged by the prisoner. Democrat; merchant; iron
master.
42. Hipple, Frederick, Farmer, Bainbridge, Lancaster Co. Stood aside.
43. Hitner, Daniel O., Farmer, Whitemarsh, Montgomery Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
44. *Hopkins, James M., Farmer, Bucks P. O., Drumore Twp., Lancaster
Co. Ironmaster, Conowingo furnace. Fusion Candidate for Congress
against Stevens in 1858. Accepted (7).
45. Horn, John, Gentleman, 16 Broad St., Philadelphia. Biased in favor
of defendant and challenged for cause by U. S.
46. Hummel, Valentine, Merchant, Harrisburg, Dauphin Co.
47. Jenks, Michael H., Gentleman, Newton, Bucks Co.
48. *Junkin, John, Farmer, Landisburg, Perry Co. Accepted (8).
49. Keim, William H., Merchant, Reading, Berks Co. Stood aside.
50. Keyser, Elhanan W., Merchant, 144 North Ninth St., Philadelphia.
51. Kichline, Jacob, Farmer, Lower Saucon P. O., Northampton Co.
Challenged by prisoner.
52. Kinnard, John H., Farmer, West Whiteland P. O., Chester Co. Stood
aside.
53. Krause, John, Clerk, Lebanon, Lebanon Co. Stood aside; had
conscientious scruples against death penalty.
54. Kuhn, Hartman, Gentleman, 314 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.
Conspicuous citizen; descendant of old Lancaster family; Challenged by
U. S. for opinion.
55. Ladley, George, Farmer, Oxford P. O., Chester Co. Stood aside.
56. Leiper, George G., Farmer, Leiperville, Delaware Co. Associate
(lay) judge; excused. Prominent Democrat and intimate friend of James
Buchanan, to his latest day.
57. Lewis, Lawrence, Gentleman, 345 Chestnut St., Philadelphia.
President Mutual Insurance Company; very busy. Excused for a fortnight.
58. Luther, Diller, Gentleman, Reading, Berks Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
59. Lyons, David, Farmer, Haverford P. O., Delaware Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
60. McConkey, James, Merchant, Peachbottom P. O., York Co. Deaf and
deputy postmaster; excused. Of old Democratic family.
61. McIlvaine, Abraham R., Farmer, Wallace P. O., Chester County.
62. McKean, Thomas, Gentleman, 356 Spruce St., Philadelphia. Excused on
account of illness. Leading citizen and member of distinguished family.
63. Madeira, George A., Gentleman, Chambersburg, Franklin Co. Stood
aside.
64. Mark, George, Gentleman, Lebanon, Lebanon Co. Stood aside.
65. *Martin, Peter, Surveyor, Ephrata P. O., Lancaster Co.
Anti-Buchanan Democrat; later associate judge and prothonotary; “was
under the impression offense might be treason.” Accepted (4).
66. Massey, Charles, Merchant, 170 Arch St. Philadelphia. Excused on
account of ill health.
67. Mather, Isaac, Farmer, Jenkintown, Montgomery Co. Stood aside.
68. Merkle, Levi, Farmer, Shiremanstown, Cumberland Co. Stood aside.
69. Michler, Peter S., Merchant, Easton, Northampton Co.
70. Miller, John, Gentleman, Reading, Berks Co. Challenged by the
prisoner. Excused.
71. Moore, Marmaduke, Merchant, 153 North Thirteenth St., Philadelphia.
A prominent Democrat. Challenged by prisoner.
72. Morton, Sketchley, Farmer, Gibbon’s Tavern P. O., Delaware Co.
Stood aside.
73. Myers, Isaac, Merchant, Port Carbon, Schuylkill Co.
74. Neff, John R., Merchant, 124 Spruce St., Philadelphia. Excused for
absence from the State.
75. Newcomer, Martin, Innkeeper, Chambersburg, Franklin Co. Challenged
by U. S. for opinion.
76. *Newman, Solomon, Smith, Milford, Pike Co. First juror drawn. Stood
aside. Subsequently accepted (9).
77. Palmer, Strange N., Editor, Pottsville, Schuylkill Co. Stood aside.
78. Patterson, Robert, Merchant, S. W. cor. Thirteenth and Locust Sts.
Had decided opinions. Challenged by prisoner.
79. Penny, James, Farmer, Liberty Square P. O., Drumore Twp., Lancaster
County. Stood aside. Neighbor to Quaker Abolitionists.
80. Platt, William, Merchant, 343 Chestnut St. Philadelphia. Excused
because of ill health.
81. Preston, Paul S., Merchant, Stockport, Wayne Co. Stood aside.
82. Reynolds, John, Gentleman, Lancaster City. Father of Gen. John F.
Reynolds and Admiral Wm. Reynolds and former proprietor of a Democratic
newspaper in Lancaster. Examined at length; showed disfavor to
defendants and was challenged peremptorily by Stevens.
83. Rich, Josiah, Farmer, Danboro P. O., Bucks Co. Stood aside.
84. Richards, Matthias, Gentleman, Reading, Berks Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
85. Richardson, John, Gentleman, Spruce St., west of Broad,
Philadelphia. President of Bank of North America. Excused temporarily
for bronchial affection.
86. Rogers, Evan, Gentleman, Locust St. and Washington Square.
Challenged for cause by defendant.
87. Ross, Hugh, Farmer, Lower Chanceford Co., York Co. Challenged for
cause by defendant. Scotch Irish, Presbyterian, Democrat.
88. Rupp, John, Farmer, Mechanicksburg P. O., Hempden Twp., Cumberland
Co. Associate judge; excused temporarily. Recalled and challenged by U.
S. because he was opposed to death penalty.
89. Rutherford, John B., Farmer, Harrisburg, Dauphin Co. Stood aside.
90. *Saddler, William R., York Sulphur Springs P. O., Adams Co.
Accepted (6).
91. Saylor, Charles, Merchant, Saylorsburg, Monroe Co. Postmaster.
Excused.
92. Schroeder, John S., Clerk, Reading, Berks Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
93. Small, Samuel, Merchant, York, York Co. Prominent citizen and
representative of notable family. Stood aside.
94. Smith, George, Farmer, Upper Darby P. O., Delaware Co. Stood aside.
95. Smith, John, Smith, Jenkintown, Montgomery Co. Challenged by
defendant; extended discussion; challenge sustained.
96. *Smith, Robert, Gentleman, Gettysburg, Adams Co. Accepted (5).
97. Smyser, Philip, Gentleman, York, York Co. Challenged for cause.
98. Starbird, Franklin, Farmer, Stroudsburg, Monroe Co. Stood aside.
99. Stavely, William, Farmer, Lahasha P. O., Bucks Co. Challenged by
prisoner.
100. Stevens, William, Merchant, Whitehallville, Bucks Co. Challenged
by prisoner.
101. Stokes, Samuel E., Merchant, 39 Arch St., Philadelphia.
102. Taylor, Caleb N., Farmer, Newportville, Bucks Co. Suffering from
what Judge Grier called “Epidemic of deafness.” Excused.
103. Toland, George W., Gentleman, 178 Arch St., Philadelphia.
104. Trexler, Lesher, Gentleman, Allentown, Lehigh Co. Stood aside.
105. *Wainwright, Jonathan, Merchant, Beach, below Hanover St.,
Philadelphia. Stood aside. Subsequently recalled and accepted (10).
106. Walsh, Robert F., Merchant, 5 Girard St., Philadelphia. “Thought
the offense treason.” Challenged by the Court.
107. Watmough, John G., Gentleman, Germantown, Philadelphia County.
“Strongly against the whole business.” Challenged by U. S.
108. Watson, William, Farmer, Mechanicsville, Bucks Co. Stood aside.
109. West, David, Farmer, Kimberton, Chester Co. Stood aside.
110. White, Thomas H., Gentleman, N. W. Cor. Ninth & Spruce Sts.,
Philadelphia. Challenged for opinion by U. S.
111. Whitehall, James, Gentleman, Lancaster City. Challenged by
prisoner.
112. Witman, Andrew K., Farmer, Center Valley P. O., Lehigh Co. From
neighborhood of Fries rebellion. Challenged by U. S. for opinion, after
long discussion.
113. Williamson, William, Gentleman, West Chester, Chester Co.
Challenged by prisoner.
114. *Wilson, James, Gentleman, Fairfield P. O., Adams Co. Accepted and
sworn (3). From neighborhood of Stevens’ iron works.
115. Vanzant, Franklin, Farmer, Attleboro P. O., Bucks Co. Two children
sick. Excused temporarily.
116. Yohe, Samuel, Gentleman, Easton, Northampton Co. Stood aside.
As finally selected the trial jury consisted of the following persons:
1. ROBERT ELLIOTT, farmer, Ickesburg, Perry County, aged 69.
2. JAMES WILSON, gentleman, Fairfield postoffice, Adams County, aged 73.
3. THOMAS CONNELLY, carpenter, Beaver Meadow, Carbon County, aged 54.
4. PETER MARTIN, surveyor, Ephrata postoffice, Lancaster County, aged
46.
5. ROBERT SMITH, gentleman, Gettysburg, Adams County, aged 57.
6. WILLIAM R. SADDLER, farmer, York Sulphur Springs postoffice, Adams
County, aged 41.
7. JAMES M. HOPKINS, farmer, Bucks postoffice, Drumore Township,
Lancaster County, aged 50.
8. JOHN JUNKIN, farmer, Landisburg, Perry County, aged 56.
9. SOLOMON NEWMAN, smith, Milford, Pike County, aged 48.
10. JONATHAN WAINWRIGHT, Merchant, Philadelphia, aged 66.
11. EPHRAIM FENTON, farmer, Upper Dublin postoffice, Montgomery County,
aged 52.
12. JAMES COWDEN, merchant, Columbia, Lancaster County, aged 36.
Average age of jurors: 53.
In opening for the prosecution District Attorney Ashmead defined
the act of treason, as it had been laid down in previous judicial
deliverances, and he relied on the proof that there had been an armed
and organized resistance to the execution of the laws of Congress, in
which the prisoner not only participated, but of which he was a leader.
After he had concluded, Z. Collins Lee, of Baltimore, United States
District Attorney, appeared also for the prosecution. Witnesses were
excluded while other witnesses were testifying. Mr. G. L. Ashmead, who
was a cousin of the United States Attorney, conducted the examination
of the witnesses. The scene was located; Deputy Kline told his story
in detail, substantially as the incident has been related; he insisted
that he asked Hanway and Lewis to aid him in enforcing his writs and
they refused; Hanway sat on his horse during the affray and Joshua
Gorsuch, pretty badly hurt, got behind the horse for protection. Kline
was the special target of severe and sarcastic cross-examination by
Mr. Stevens, as he was the Atlas of the Government’s case. To break
him down on the identity of those who were present at the riot, Mr.
Stevens insisted on the Court allowing the presence in Court of all the
prisoners; and when he accomplished this dramatic purpose he turned
Kline over to Mr. Lewis for further and protracted cross-examination on
the skirmishing movements of the arresting party before the riot. Mr.
Read also took a hand in his cross-examination, which was not concluded
until the Saturday of the first week. His last answer at this session
was to the effect that he did not see Joseph Scarlet at the “action.”
Dr. Pearce testified at some length corroborating Kline; and averring
very distinctly that he saw a shot fired from the window of the
house at Gorsuch, the elder. He was severely cross-examined by Mr.
Stevens, who intimated repeatedly that the witness had charged Kline
with cowardice. Dickinson Gorsuch followed him and testified to the
main facts. Neither he nor his cousin, Joshua, was subjected to
any cross-examination; and both of them were less direct in their
accusations against Hanway and Lewis than Kline, at the most declaring
that Hanway’s arrival seemed to give the colored men inspiration and
encouragement. The son established his father’s determination not to
be driven or intimidated from the premises, and described the killing
of him and the wounding of himself. These circumstances, creditable
to the valor of the Gorsuches, did not materially prejudice the case
of the defendant on the trial. Dickinson recognized Scarlet as one who
at first refused to help him, but subsequently got him water. Nicholas
Hutchins was also examined as to the affray and corroborated the other
witnesses; likewise Nathan Nelson, the other of the Maryland party.
These witnesses were positive in their recognition of Noah Buley and
Joshua Hammond, the elder two of the runaways.
The first week of the trial closed with Miller Knott on the stand.
He was a citizen of the neighborhood, who was not charged with any
complicity, but who had given aid to the wounded. He had seen a man on
horseback, in his shirt sleeves--presumably Hanway--riding northward,
with a band of negroes following him; and a half score or more
attacking Dickinson Gorsuch, while others followed Isaiah Clarkson into
the corn field. He saw Gorsuch the father lying alone not yet dead;
and Joseph Scarlet, on horseback, at “the mouth of the long lane”;
he subsequently returned with the colored men toward Parker’s house.
From this witness it appeared that it was a mile from Hanway’s mill to
Parker’s house, that Joseph Scarlet would have to travel two miles and
his horse was “sweaty,” that Elijah Lewis lived from a mile and a half
to two miles away. Mr. Knott was not subjected to cross-examination.
His son, John, had preceded him to Parker’s by ten minutes and saw the
riot from a point about thirty yards from the junction of the long lane
and the house lane. He saw from fifty to sixty negroes come out from
the house, shouting and shooting, disperse up the little lane and run
toward the creek. He saw horses hitched on the fence in the long lane;
he saw Dickinson Gorsuch bleeding and gave him water. Again the defense
desisted from cross-examination of either of the Knotts. Alderman
Reigart testified to an exciting conversation between Kline and Hanway
and Lewis at Christiana, after their arrest, when Kline had denounced
them savagely and they disclaimed having incited the negroes. It was
manifest the defendants would centre their attack upon Kline and Mr.
Read brought out the fact that while he wore formidable whiskers and
mustaches at the time of the affray, he had since shaved them off. It
was shown that though he publicly denounced the prisoners as “white
livered scoundrels” who had ordered the blacks to fire, his statements
under oath were very much milder.
A long discussion ensued over the admission of Charles Smith’s
evidence, but he was finally permitted to testify that Samuel
Williams--the colored man from Philadelphia who had trailed Kline--had
brought and circulated news of the intended raid for the arrest
of the Gorsuch runaways. It was disclosed by Dr. Cain’s testimony
that Washington and Clark, colored witnesses who had escaped from
Moyamensing, had been circulating a paper on September 10th, which had
the character of a warning to the Maryland refugees. Shortly after the
affray Dr. Cain, at his own tenant house, treated two colored men,
Henry C. Hopkins and John Long, who had been shot, one in the arm
and one in the thigh. Hopkins was the doctor’s tenant. John Roberts,
a colored witness, who had been detained as such, for more than ten
weeks, in Moyamensing, proved that Joseph Scarlet told him “about sun
up” that kidnappers were at Parker’s, and witness got a loaded gun from
Jacob Townsend and went to the scene. Other witnesses of the same kind,
and detained the same way, elicited little material matter, as they
arrived on the scene after the battle. In support of the Government’s
theory of a treasonable conspiracy, some evidence was introduced of
meetings at West Chester in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, but
the participation of the accused was not shown.
The scenes attending the trial are described by the newspapers of the
day as highly interesting and sometimes sensational. Popular interest
grew as it progressed, and it centered upon the prisoner who was a
stranger in Philadelphia. One newspaper account describes Hanway as
displaying the greatest self-possession during the selection of jurors.
“He is apparently about 35 years of age, tall but spare in form, and
inclined to stoop a little. There is a becoming seriousness in his
countenance, but nothing like alarm or trepidation is visible. When
called upon to look at the juror summoned to try him, he does so with
a firm and inquiring look, but never determines upon his admission or
rejection until he has consulted his counsel, Thaddeus Stevens, who
sits immediately by his side.”
Before the defense was formally opened its course and character had
been anticipated by the cross-examination of Mr. Stevens; in this
quality of a trial lawyer he was an acknowledged master. The opening
speech of Mr. Cuyler referred to the division among the counsel
for the prosecution; it praised the fairness of Mr. Ashmead, who,
it declared, had been remanded to the background, because Maryland
distrusted the justice of Pennsylvania. This was an effective appeal
to the State pride of the jury. He vigorously assailed Kline, who
had been the Government’s most zealous witness. He traced the course
of Pennsylvania’s legislation on slavery and insisted that this
Commonwealth was “ever true to her plighted constitutional good faith”;
he extolled Hanway’s civic virtues, and dwelt with emphasis upon the
local agitation over the “lawless and diabolical outrages” of the
kidnappers; and finally ridiculed the idea of treason in the allegation
that “three harmless, non-resisting Quakers, and eight-and-thirty
wretched, miserable, penniless negroes, armed with corn-cutters, clubs,
and a few muskets, and headed by a miller, in a felt hat, without a
coat, without arms, and mounted on a sorrel nag, levied war against the
United States.”
When Mr. Stevens began the production of testimony for the defense with
offers to prove the recent kidnapping outrages in the neighborhood of
Gap, the legal storm center of the trial was at hand. The prosecution
saw and feared the influence of this line of evidence as keenly as
the defense recognized its force and value. Judges Grier and Kane
both discerned the vital issue at once and long before the argument
concluded, pointed out that as the accusation was treason--a position
founded upon some previous conspiracy--the defense must be allowed the
same latitude to disprove intent as had been allowed to the prosecution
to establish it. This opened the way for Thomas Pennington to tell the
story of what had occurred at the home of his son-in-law, William Marsh
Chamberlain, the preceding January--it was the same night, by the way,
that “James Ray fell dead as he entered the door of his own house.” As
has been heretofore related, in the absence at Ray’s of the head of the
Chamberlain household, the black man in employ was beaten and dragged
out and carried off by intruders without legal process and led by local
abettors of the capture.
The fact that it was not shown the man taken was a free man, or
that he may have been reclaimed by the authority of his owner, made
little difference in the popular feeling about the affair or in the
effectiveness of the incident for trial purposes. If such ruthlessness
might be technically legal it made the slave law none the less odious!
Henry Ray went further than Pennington and identified both Perry
Marsh and William Bear as associates of the band who carried off
Chamberlain’s man; and Mrs. Chamberlain--who saw the incident through a
pipe hole from upstairs, where the affrighted family had retreated--and
her brother, Miller Pennington, described it in a manner that
heightened its effect. With this recital the defense made a distinct
advance.
When the next witness, Elijah Lewis, was called, a question was raised
as to his competency. Although not himself on trial, he was under
indictment for the same offense as the prisoner. Mr. Brent cited
“5th Espinasse,” but the Government’s objection was not urged with
much confidence and was not sustained by the Court. Interest centered
in the witness as he was probably the most conspicuous of all the
defendants and a recognized leader of local sentiment. He supported
the case of the defendants as their counsel had outlined it; and his
intelligence, direct manner and forceful expression gave added weight
to his testimony. Isaiah Clarkson had summoned him to the scene by the
report that Parker’s house was surrounded and had been broken into by
kidnappers; he started on foot and called Hanway, who was not very well
and got his horse; Kline showed them a paper which he assumed was a
warrant; the negroes were excited and Hanway begged them not to shoot;
witness had turned south toward the wood, Kline following and Hanway
to the north when the shooting began. He contradicted Kline’s story of
him or Hanway expressing defiance of the law and declared Kline was “in
the woods” when the firing began; he and Hanway were not arrested; they
gave themselves up. Cross-examination strengthened his statement.
Other witnesses testified to Kline’s declarations after the event to
the effect that he had wanted to withdraw, but was overruled; that Dr.
Pearce admitted the Gorsuches were rash and Kline timid, and that he
himself owed his life to Hanway’s protection.
The defense then opened its batteries against Kline’s reputation. Hon.
William D. Kelly--later a Common Pleas Judge and long time a leading
member of Congress from Philadelphia--headed a long list of witnesses
who testified that Kline’s reputation was bad and that he was unworthy
of belief. There were nearly a score in all and many of them were most
emphatic; it was also shown that in some accounts of the affray Kline
had denounced “the damned Quaker abolitionists.”
To open the way for the recanting witness, Harvey Scott, to recall his
former stories and repudiate their statements, witnesses were called
to testify that he was not at the riot at all, but was “buttoned up”
in John Carr’s garret until daylight and from that time on was at the
place, blowing and striking in his employer’s blacksmith shop; that
when he heard of the affair he congratulated himself with the remark,
“I’m a nigger out of that scrape.”
Lewis Cooper, who was a son-in-law of Elijah Lewis, had, with Joseph
Scarlet’s assistance, taken Dickinson Gorsuch to the Pownall house; he
had heard Dr. Pearce tell of his uncle’s rashness and that one of his
own slaves, “a bright yellow negro,” shot him; and also that he had
been saved by holding on to Hanway’s saddle skirt.
Many witnesses were called to prove Hanway’s character “as a peaceable,
good, loyal and orderly citizen.” It was brought out that Hanway,
contrary to the general popular impression, was not a member of the
Society of Friends. Having been born in Delaware and lived in Chester
as well as Lancaster County, and having been at one time absent from
the State, the witnesses in his behalf represented different sections
of the country.
The rebuttal on the part of the prosecution consisted largely of
an attempt to rehabilitate Kline’s reputation; a great number of
respectable citizens of Philadelphia, who had known him from his
youth up, were called to testify that his character was good and
that he was entitled to belief. The opening in rebuttal also covered
proposed proof of alleged outrages and reprisals by the sympathizers
with fugitive slaves, in that armed and organized bands of negroes
paraded the streets of Lancaster “on the hunt for slave hunters and
avowing the determination, if they caught them, they would kill
them”; that in April, 1851, Samuel Worthington, of Maryland, went
into the neighborhood of Christiana to reclaim his fugitive slave and
was resisted by armed force; that bells were rung and horns blown to
arouse the neighborhood and the master was obliged to flee for his
life. It was also promised that Harvey Scott would corroborate his
former statement and disprove the alibi that had been made out for
him. In the number of witnesses who were called to prove the general
character of Kline for truth and veracity, the Government far exceeded
his assailants. The proposed testimony as to previous occurrences in
the neighborhood, showing popular feeling against the resistance to
the reclaiming of fugitive slaves, was ruled out by the Court; the
trial judges concurred that if it was any part of the Government’s
case it should have been offered originally, and Judge Grier jocularly
observed, “We may draw a figure from the game of whist--it would be
renigging and keeping your trump back to the last trick.”
When the recanting witness, Harvey Scott, was called by the Government
to prove that the alibi made for him was not correct, and Mr. Ashmead
confidently offered him to prove that he was at the riot, Scott
startled the prosecution and satisfied the defense by testifying as
follows: “I gave my evidence that I was there once. I was frightened at
the time I was taken up, and I said I was there, but I was not; I was
proved to be there, but I was not there; they took me to Christiana,
and I was frightened, and I didn’t know what to say, and I said what
they told me.” He repeated this, whereupon Mr. Ashmead declared that he
had been entrapped and asked that Scott might be committed to take his
trial for perjury, when the following colloquy occurred:
“JUDGE GRIER. Poor devil, it is not worth while for the United States
to do it. Let him go, and if you owe him any thing, pay him, that he
may not be tempted to steal.
”MR. STEVENS. The truth is, that he is not right in his mind.
“MR. J. W. ASHMEAD. With that explanation I am perfectly willing he
should depart.”
At the resumption of the trial on the next day there was a good deal
of discussion as to what should be done about the variation in the
testimony of the witness Scott. The Government had manifestly suffered
from his wobbling, and intimated that he had been tampered with; all
of which was resented by the defense, who declared that he was only
a “poor miserable negro,” shallow-minded and uncertain, and that the
United States having fed and clothed him for the purpose of the trial,
no one representing the defense had had any access to him and the whole
effect of his testimony was a matter for the jury. After again calling
Dickinson Gorsuch to prove that two of his father’s slaves--Noah Buley
and Joshua Hammond--were present at the shooting, the testimony closed,
and it was agreed there should be not more than three speeches on
either side.
The summing up began on Friday, December 5, Mr. Ludlow opening for the
prosecution and discussing at length and elaborately the law of the
case, and then proceeding to consider the strength of the Government’s
testimony and the improbabilities of what had been proved on the
part of the defense. Being himself a member of the Philadelphia bar,
he undertook the defense of Kline, and declared that no man of bad
character could have produced in his behalf the array of witnesses whom
the Government had called to sustain its deputy marshal. On Saturday
morning, December 6, Mr. Lewis, of West Chester, commenced to sum up
for the defense. He made an exceptionally able argument both on the
facts and the law of the case and reviewed the history of the two
leading cases of treason which had occurred in Pennsylvania arising
out of the so-called Whiskey Insurrection and the Fries rebellion. He
was followed by Attorney General Brent, for the prosecution, and his
speech was not concluded when Court adjourned on Saturday afternoon
to meet the following Monday. It was at this session of the Court the
colored prisoners were brought in clad in the uniform dress which had
been furnished them by sympathizing friends, and the scene that was
presented is thus described by a contemporary newspaper reporter:
“On Saturday morning, December 6, when Mr. Lewis was to speak first
for the prisoners and was to be followed by the Attorney General of
Maryland there was a great throng present at the trial. The room was
overcrowded with women, and Marshal Roberts was greatly embarrassed
at his inability to find or to make a place for them. The special
attention of the spectators was attracted to a row of colored men,
seated on the north side of the room. They were cleanly in their
appearance, and their heads and faces presented strong presumptive
evidence that they had just escaped from the hands of the barber.
These were the colored prisoners alleged to have been engaged in
the treason at Christiana, and numbered twenty-four. They were all
similarly attired wearing around their necks ‘red, white and blue
scarfs.’ Lucretia Mott was at their head. This, we believe, is her
first appearance in court since the trials have commenced. Her
dignified and benevolent countenance ever attracts attention. Under
that calm exterior there glows a fire, kindled by charity, which is as
universal as it is ardent and enduring. She sat knitting during the
entire session of the court, apparently unconscious of what was going
on around her, except when some point in the testimony seemed to bear
strongly against the prisoner. Then her eyes were lifted from her work,
and sparkled for a moment with admiration; but speedily relapsed into
their intelligent, yet quiet and peaceful aspect. One of the colored
persons, whose name is Collister Wilson, was too unwell to be brought
from prison on Saturday morning. It is but just to say, that these
colored men, taken together, will compare in personal appearance with
an equal number of the same race taken indiscriminately from any part
of the world. The two white men, Lewis and Scarlet, were also brought
from prison, but occupied the rear or east end of the court room. These
two appeared to be between thirty and forty years of age, and judging
from their garb, do not belong to the Society of Friends, as has been
generally supposed. On inquiring how it happened that the colored
prisoners were all dressed alike, we were informed that they had been
clothed by a committee of ladies belonging to the Abolition Society,
who have been very attentive to them since they have been in prison.”
Subsequent reports of the trial indicate increased attendance,
especially of “ladies dressed in Quaker garb.”
Continuing his speech on the following Monday the Attorney General
waxed eloquent over the glories of the Union and the perils to national
peace that lay in resistance to law and in the refusal of any one
section to accord to another its legal rights. He read from Webster’s
speeches and Washington’s farewell address and from Judge Iredell’s
charge on the trial of the Fries cases. He referred to the presence in
Court by Hanway’s side of his devoted and affectionate wife, who it
seems had sat with him during the trial. While the gallantry of the
Maryland lawyer constrained him to express his admiration and respect
for “the afflicted lady of this prisoner,” he warned the jury against
being controlled by “the spell of that female influence which is more
potent than the eloquence of counsel,” and contrasted the situation
of Mrs. Hanway with that of Gorsuch’s wife “who, as a widow, is now
mourning the loss and lover of her youth and the prop of her declining
years.” He played upon the color of Scarlet’s name; he denounced the
coroner’s inquest, lauded the chivalrous courage of Edward Gorsuch,
pictured with skillful hands the combat at the Parker house and the
“diabolical malice” of those who mangled the victim of that occasion
after they had killed him. He insisted that both Lewis and Hanway had
been guilty of treason and that they had incited the blacks to make
armed resistance to the law of the land.
To Mr. Read was assigned the responsible duty of replying immediately
to Brent, which he did in a speech occupying nearly three days in the
delivery and, as the reporter observes, “marked throughout by eloquence
and profound learning, being a thorough and complete dissertation on
the law of treason, and which riveted the attention not only of the
Court and jury, but of a crowded auditory.”
It was expected that Thaddeus Stevens would follow him, and the public
interest which attached to his speaking was probably greater than that
attending any of the other counsel; but for some reason he declined
speaking in the cause, and Mr. Read was followed by Senator Cooper, who
represented not only the State of Maryland, but the Gorsuch family.
He expounded with the ability of a profound lawyer the constitutional
definition of treason and applied it to the facts of the case, which he
insisted fully, amply and distinctly proved the overt act of treason.
In the cases of contradiction between Lewis and Kline he declared
that Kline was supported by the testimony of all the Maryland party,
while Lewis stood alone, and Lewis was an interested and therefore
discredited witness. His peroration was an earnest plea for the Union
and against anything that would affect its stability or endanger its
peace. In Websterian strain he closed as follows: “The eyes of the
world are upon the constellation in its banner. Its stars are the
beacons of liberty. Let us then, for our sakes, and for the sake of
liberty in other lands, guard it as the Ark of the Covenant was guarded
of old. Let no hand deface it. Let the day never come when it shall
be rent in twain; when one cluster of its stars, separated from the
other and beaming in different banners, shall be borne over adverse and
conflicting hosts; but let it remain as it now is, ‘the Flag of the
Union,’ still waving over the heads of united freemen, obedient to the
same laws--laws supported by all, sustained by all, vindicated by all,
in every section of the country.”
The argument of the case closed with Senator Cooper’s speech and he was
immediately followed by Justice Grier’s charge to the jury. After the
judge had made a general exposition of the law, he paid a high tribute
to the manner in which the case had been conducted on both sides by
counsel. He framed the issues to be determined by the jury as two-fold,
involving first the question as to whether Hanway participated in
the offenses proved to have been committed, and, secondly, if he
did so, was his offence treason? In undertaking to vindicate the
reputation of the people of Pennsylvania he left no doubt as to his
own individual views upon the subject of the anti-slavery agitation
then prevailing, and the following extracts from his charge, which were
savagely resented at the time of their utterance even by those who were
satisfied with his legal conclusion, are reported to have been uttered
in a shrill and piping voice, which added to the intensity of their
expression:
“With the exception of a few individuals of perverted intellect,
some small districts or neighborhoods whose moral atmosphere has
been tainted and poisoned, by male and female vagrant lecturers and
conventions, no party in politics, no sect of religion, nor any
respectable numbers or character can be found within our borders who
have viewed with approbation or looked with any other than feelings of
abhorrence upon this disgraceful tragedy.
“It is not in this Hall of Independence, that meetings of infuriated
fanatics and unprincipled demagogues have been held to counsel a
bloody resistance to the laws of the land. It is not in this _city_
that conventions are held denouncing the Constitution, the laws, and
the Bible. It is not _here_ that the pulpit has been desecrated by
seditious exhortations, teaching that theft is meritorious, murder
excusable and treason a virtue.
“The guilt of this foul murder rests not alone on the deluded
individuals who were its immediate perpetrators, but the blood taints
with even deeper dye the skirts of those who promulgated doctrines
subversive of all morality and all government.”
He practically disposed, however, of the whole case and took its
further consideration from the jury by his announced legal conclusion
that the offense did not arise to that of treason. His summing up on
this branch of the subject practically concluded all of the cases. It
was as follows:
“Without desiring to invade the prerogatives of the jury in judging
the facts of this case, the Court feel bound to say, that they do not
think the transaction with which the prisoner is charged with being
connected, rises to the dignity of treason or levying war. Not because
the numbers or force was insufficient. But 1st, For want of any proof
of previous conspiracy to make a _general and public resistance to any
law_ of the United States. 2ndly, Because there is no evidence that
any person concerned in the transaction knew there were such acts of
Congress, as those with which they were charged with conspiring to
resist by force and arms, or had any other intention than to protect
one another from what they termed kidnappers (by which slang term they
probably included not only actual kidnappers, but all masters and
owners seeking to recapture their slaves, and the officers and agents
assisting therein).
“The testimony of the prosecution shows that notice had been given
that certain fugitives were pursued; the riot, insurrection, tumult,
or whatever you may call it, was but a sudden ‘conclamatio’ or
running together, to prevent the capture of certain of their friends
or companions, or to rescue them if arrested. Previous to this
transaction, so far as we are informed, no attempt had been made to
arrest fugitives in the neighborhood under the new act of Congress
by a public officer. Heretofore arrests had been made by the owner
in person, or his agent properly authorized, or by an officer of the
law. Individuals without any authority, but incited by cupidity, and
the hope of obtaining the reward offered for the return of a fugitive,
had heretofore undertaken to seize them by force and violence, to
invade the sanctity of private dwellings at night, and insult the
feelings and prejudices of the people. It is not to be wondered
at that a people subject to such inroads, should consider odious
the perpetrators of such deeds and denominate them kidnappers--and
that the subjects of this treatment should have been encouraged in
resisting such aggressions, where the rightful claimant could not be
distinguished from the odious kidnapper, or the fact be ascertained
whether the person seized, deported or stolen in this manner, was a
free man or a slave. But the existence of such feelings is no evidence
of a determination or conspiracy by the people to publicly resist any
legislation of Congress, or levy war against the United States. That
in consequence of such excitement, such an outrage should have been
committed, is deeply to be deplored. That the persons engaged in it
are guilty of aggravated riot and murder cannot be denied. But riot
and murder are offences against the State Government. It would be a
dangerous precedent for the Court and jury in this case to extend the
crime of treason by construction to doubtful cases.”
Having thus practically disposed of the case Mr. Justice Grier praised
the U. S. Attorney and the counsel for Maryland for their zeal and
ability, and intimated that the duty of punishing “the perpetrators of
this outrage” might be transferred to the courts of Lancaster County,
where the activity and zeal of its law officers gave assurance that
their duty would be performed with all fidelity.
After the Judge’s charge the jury retired to deliberate at the American
House where they were lodged. They returned in fifteen minutes and
rendered a verdict of “Not Guilty,” which announcement was received by
the large audience present “in a becoming manner”; the propriety of
their conduct is ascribed to the fact that the Judge’s charge forecast
the verdict.
John M. Read afterwards said some of the jurymen informed him they were
ready to acquit before the defense opened.
On motion of District Attorney Ashmead, and in consideration of the
ordeal through which Castner Hanway had just passed, four other bills
against him for misdemeanor were non prossed and he was discharged
from custody and from all further prosecution in the Federal Courts.
The charge of treason against Elijah Lewis was withdrawn, and he
and Samuel Williams were admitted to bail in $2,000 on four other
indictments pending against them. Hanway and Lewis were brought to
Lancaster on Friday afternoon, December 12th, and held by Associate
Judge Vondersmith in $1,000 bail each, “to answer any charge that might
be brought against them.”
There was a later proceeding in which all the other bills for treason
were non prossed; and the proposed transfer of the prisoners to
Lancaster County was announced by the District Attorney. Mr. Read
brought to the attention of the Court the subject of the United States
paying the expenses of the Hanway witnesses; for which there was a
precedent in Aaron Burr’s case. The subject was fully argued December
19th; and Judge Kane filed an opinion refusing to tax these costs
against the Government and dismissing Hanway’s petition.
Subsequently a petition to Congress, of which the following is a copy,
was circulated and signed by the defendants, but it availed nothing:
“TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:
“The Petition of
Citizens of the State of Penna., respectfully represents;
That Whereas in the month of September 1851 a Riot occurred in the
vicinity of the residence of your petitioners, generally known
as the ‘Christiana Riot,’ and your petitioners repairing to the
scene of disturbance without any evil intentions, but to prevent
violence, were arrested by persons acting for the United States,
and charged with the highest crimes known to our Laws, and thrown
into prison, where they were detained many months and subjected to
great expense in making preparations to meet those charges, whereby
their estates were wasted, their minds harassed to the verge of
insanity, and their health impaired, till premature decrepitude
is the consequence, after which they were discharged without a
hearing, thereby tacitly admitting the charges were groundless,
having incurred an expense of many thousand dollars.
“Your petitioners therefore pray you the honorable representatives
of the most magnanimous nation of the earth, to grant us some
relief from our embarrassments, and we will ever pray, etc.”
Thus ended the Treason Trials of 1851.