The alleged case of kidnapping, he said, was committed by a party of imprudent Southerners, who, under the decision of the Supreme Court in Prigg’s case, had taken the law in their own hands and carried their slave away without process. He argued, too, that Hanway’s good character could not avail him in such a prosecution. The testimony in regard to Kline’s bad character was, he thought, the result of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law, and was more than met by the witnesses who had been produced in rebuttal. He then defended Kline from the imputation of cowardice, which it appeared rested upon him, from his conduct at Parker’s house, and contended he had acted as a good officer and brave man. Mr. L. then pointed out and attempted to reconcile to the Jury some discrepancies in the evidence, and concluded by some eloquent remarks upon the value and importance of the Union.
The next morning, (Saturday December 6th,) before the argument was resumed, Mr. Brent called the attention of the court to an article in a paper called the Pennsylvania Freeman. It contained an account of the serving up of a dinner for the prisoners on Thanksgiving day, and stated that the Marshal had participated with them. After some rather severe remarks from the Bench upon the character of the paper, the Marshal made an explanation of the matter with which Mr. Brent expressed himself perfectly satisfied.
Whatever may have been the object of presenting the subject to the Court at that time, whether to “give a public officer an opportunity of offering a public explanation,” or for any other purpose, it certainly had the effect of casting odium upon the prisoner at the bar. It was extraneous matter and as such should have been withheld till the conclusion of the trial. But when offered, the defence did not choose to exercise their right to object, not wishing to prejudice the defendant by any act which, on the part of illiberal counsel, might be called a disposition to stifle a full and fair investigation, of what (had not its folly and absurdity been made public) might, by _innuendo_ and such other tricks, have been handled before the Jury in a manner prejudicial to the defendant.
Mr. Lewis then began his remarks in behalf of the defence. He deprecated, in strong terms, the whole prosecution, and alleged it had been commenced in a moment of excitement and public phrenzy. Had a little time been allowed for reflection, for inquiry into the facts, to ascertain Castner Hanway’s character, this issue would never have been presented to this jury. He suggested that the whole proceeding had taken this course at the instigation of the authorities of a neighboring State. The people of Pennsylvania did not deserve such treatment. They had always been loyal, and no better evidence of this is needed than the course and character of their legislation. Mr. Lewis then hastily rehearsed the different acts of Assembly upon the subject, mentioning the objects and purposes of each, and in some cases their private history. From these it appeared that the State of Pennsylvania had ever attempted to establish two points: “To provide a means for the recovery of fugitives within her borders, and to protect her own free black population. The first she did from comity, the last from duty.” The course of Maryland, had, he remarked, been uniformly the opposite of this. She had treated the free black subjects of Pennsylvania with habitual harshness and severity. After further comments upon the relative course of the two States, and asserting the right of every citizen of Pennsylvania, to interpose his influence when injury to her people or violence to her laws is threatened, he repeated the remark made by one of his colleagues that no one deprecated the unfortunate occurrences on the morning of the 11th more than Castner Hanway, and that neither he nor his counsel came there to justify, excuse, or palliate them. In their management of the defence they had desired to obtain not only justice to the living, but to observe a due respect to the memory of the dead, and a regard for the lacerated feelings of those who were bound by near ties to the unfortunate murdered man. The Messrs. Gorsuch had not been asked a question in cross examination, but were permitted to tell their story as witnesses in their own way.