St. Joseph County, Indiana - Yiii, 1880

In 1847 John Norris resided on the south branch of the Ohio river, about one mile and a half below the town of Lawrenceburg, Indiana. He claimed to own as slaves a family consisting of David Powell, his wife Lucy, and their four children, Lewfs, Samuel, George and James. He permitted the family to cultivate a piece of ground and sell the produce where they pleased, and David and thoboys were often seen in Lawrencebui-g selling their produce.

During the night of Saturday, Oct. 9, 1847, David and his family disappeared from Kentucky. Tlie alarm was given ne.xt morning, Sunday, and about forty persons started in pursuit. Norris and a party in his employ hunted through Southern Indiana for about two months without success, though they found articles of clothing belonging to the fugitives at several different places. In September, 184!t, Norris started with a party of eight men, and about midnight of the 27th of that month, they forcibly broke into a house about eight miles from Cassopolis, in Cass county, Michigan, occupied by Mr. Powell's family. The house was in the woods about half a mile from any other dwelling. Mr. Powell and his son Samuel were absent from home at the time. Norris and his party drew their pistols and bowie knives, and compelled the mother and her three children to rise from their beds and" follow them. Some thoj' bound with cords, and hurrying them off to their covered wagons, they started post haste for Ken tuck}', leaving a portion of their company at the house to prevent the other inmates from giving the alarm. Lewis, the oldest son, had but recently been married, and was forcibly separated from his wife by the brutal gang. After awhile the alarm was given, and pursuit commenced; a neighbor, Mr. Wright Maudlin, overtook them about noon, near South Bend, Indiana, about thirty miles from where they had started. This was on Friday, the 2Stli of September. Mr. Maudlin immediately applied to E. B. Crocker, an attorney in South Bend, stated what he knew of the circumstances, that he had no doubt the family were free, that he had known them for some time as quiet and" industrious persons, and never heard any intimation that thev were slaves. They had purchased a small tract of land, on (618)

A petition for a writoi haieas corpus was drawn up, and signed, and sworn to, bj' Mr. Maudlin, setting forth tliat Mrs. Powell and Lewis Powell (as Mr. Maudlin did not tlien know with certainty how many of the family had been taken) were deprived of their liberty by some person whose name was unknown, under pretense that they were fugitive slaves, averring that he verily believed they were free persons. On this petition the Hon. Elisha Egbert, Probate Judge of St. Joseph county, who was authorized by a special statute to issue and try writs of haheas corpus, ordered that writ to issue. It was issued accordingly by tlie clerk, and placed in the hands of Russell Day, Deputy-Sheriff, for service. Mr. Day, learning that the Kentuckians were armed, called upon several citizens to accompany him in serving the writ. In the ineantime the report having spread about that a party of kidnappers with their captives were in the vicinity, the wliole town was aroused, and the people, in a hioh state of excitement, were running about, anxiously inquiring into the matter. The deputy sherifl' with his company overtook the Kentuckians about one mile south of the town, where they had stopped in the bushes to feed their horses. They were all well armed, making quite a display of their weapons, and evincing at first a disposition to resist all legal proceedings. The writ was served "b}' reading, and after considerable parley, in which they were made to understand most distinctly that they could not proceed without a fair trial of their claims, they at last consented to go back to town and proceed to trial on the writ. By this time about thirty or forty persons had arrived from town, two of whom brought gnus, but no attempt to use them was made. A Mr. Frazier, with a gun in his hand, was met b}' IVIr. Crocker, and told by him to put up his weapon, as it was no place for such things. Some of the citizens carried walking canes, but no force was used toward the Kentuckians, though the people were in a high state of excitement. JMorris and his party at last drove back to town with their captives, followed by the Sheriff and the people. In the meantime a new writ of habeas corpus had been pi-ocured, directed to Mr. Norris, whose name had been ascertained, for all four of the captives, which was served upon him as soon as he arrived in town, the first writ having been dismissed. At the request of Norris, the deputy sheriff placed the captives in jail, until he could procure counsel. In a short tiine he procured the services of Messrs. Listen and Stanfield, two of tlie ablest lawyers in Northern Indiana, to conduct his defense. Mcsprs. Deavitt and Crocker appeared on behalf of the captives. Norris and his counsel appeared before the judge, who held his court in the court-house, and asked for time to enable them to -iivejiare their defense, which was readily granted. After about an huur or more tiiey again appeared, and made a return to the last writ oi habeas corpus, sworn to by Mr. Norris.

It appearing from the return of Norris that he had not procured the certificate required by the act of Congress, the counsel for the captives, therefore, " excepted to the sufficiency cf the return," as provided by the statute, distinctly stating to the judge that if this exception should be overruled they should tiien take issue upon the facts alleged iTi the return, and require Norris to prove all the facts therein. It will be noticed that the act of Congress is imperative in requiring the claimant to take the fugitives before some judge or magistrate of the State or count}', " wherein such seizure or arrest shall be made," to procure the certificate.

The exception was ably argued on both sides until night, tiie counsel for the captives insisting that the law of '93 was the only remedy ])rovided by Congress to recover fugitives from labor; that a claimant must strictly pursue its provisions to enable liim to enforce his rights; that although by this law he had the right to seize or arrest, in the first instance, in the State where he might find the fugitive, yet, to enable him to hold his captive in another State, he must first procure a certificate in the State where the arrest was made, as provided by the law. The statute was plain in its provisions, and there was no misunderstanding it. On the other hand, it was contended that a claimant had a right to arrest any person whom he might claim as his slave, wherever he could find him, take him wlierever he pleased, without any proof, certificate, warrant or process whatever; and if any one interfered or questioned the claim, they did it at their peril. No authority whatever was introduced to sustain this position, and the judge, after a full and candid hearing, sustained the exception and ordered the captives to be discharged.

The court-house was crowded with an anxious audience, listening to the argument and decision. Everything had been conducted with order and propriety, and no one, we presume, anticipated the scene which followed the announcement of the decision. The judge spoke in a ver}' low tone of voice, so that but few could hear him. As soon, however, as he concluded, Mr. Crocker announced the decision in a loud tone of voice, that all could liear. Norris, in the meantime, had gathered his men around the captives as they were seated within the bar; and the moment the decision was annoupced, they seized the captives with one hand, brandished their weapons with the other, threatening to shoot the first man that interfered. This was while the judge was still sitting on the bench, and before any adjournment had been announced. Everything had been perfectly quiet up to this moment, but upon this display of force, the people rose to their feet highly excited. Some ran out and spread the alarm through town, others crowded around the Kentuckians and their captives, calling upon them to put up their weapons; but they continued brandishing them, threatening to shoot all who dared to oppose them. Mr. Liston, one of their counsel, jumped upon a table and called upon the Kentuckians to shoot all who interfered, and they would be justified in so doing. His language was most violent and abusive toward the citizens and did much to fan the excitement. The citizens were entirely unarmed, and notwithstanding the excitement, no attempt was made to rescue the captives by force. At lencrtii the Kentuckians put up their weapons, the excitement subsided, and, at the request of i^orris, the Slieriff took the captives and locked them up in jail for safe keeping.

It was now discovered that while the trial was pending Norris had procured a writ under a law of the State of Indiana respecting fugitives from labor, under which he claimed to hold them, and he alleged that he was but serving this writ when lie drew his weapons upon the people.

Tills was on Friday evening. During the evening and the next da\- several w'arrants were issued against the Kentuckians for assaults and batteries, and one for riot, predicated upon their violent proceedings in the court-house. The whole of Saturday' was occupied in trying these cases, and in the riot case they voluntarily gave bail to appear at the Circuit Court, which commenced its session the next Monday. Two suits were also commenced by the Powells against Norris and his party for trespass and false imprisonment, and they were held to bail in the sum of $1,000 in each suit. One of their counsel entered himself as bail for them. On Saturday evening, the captives having been all this time in custody of the sheriff in jail, where Norris had placed them, another writ of /iff5««s corpus was procured, returnable before the same judge at 8 o'clock on Monday morning.

In the neighborhood from whence these captives were taken, there is a large settlement of colored people, numbering, it is supposed, from 1,200 to 1,500 persons, many of whom are fugitives. As soon as it was known that Mr. Powell's wife and children had been carried off, several large parties, many of whom were armed, started in pursuit, but it was not until Saturday that they learned he direction taken. During Saturday and Sunday, numbers of these colored persons, estimated at from To to 200 persons, arrived at South Bend, many of them in a highly exasperated state, though they conducted themselves with great coolness and propriety under the circumstances.

On Saturday, a citizen of Michigan made affidavit before a justice of the peace in South Bend, that Norris and his party had been guilty of kidnapping in Michigan, and had fled from that State to Indiana. On this affidavit, a writ for their arrest was issued under a law of Indiana, which provides that, upon sufficient ]>roof, a fugitive from justice may be committed to jail for one month, to await a requisition from the Governor of the State from whence he fled. This writ was placed in the hands of a constable, but was never served.

On Sunday morning Norris had a consultation with his attorneys, at which it was conculded that it would be useless to attempt to take his captives out of the county, in the face of so many armed negroes; that they would abandon all legal proceedings, and endeavor to make the friends of the captives liable in damages for their value. Mr. Crocker, having been most active in befriending the negroes, was to be entrapped into some violation of the law, if possible. To carry out this scheme, on Sunday morning, they sent for the sheriff, and formally demanded the negroes of him, though they well knew that he had been served with a writ of habeas corpus, and that he would render himself liable to a fine of $1,000 should he fail to obe}' tiie writ. He, of course, declined. They then requested liiin to take witnesses and call upon Mr Crocker, and get him to agree to become responsible for nut delivering them. He accordingly did so, but Mr. C. replied that he was acting as attorney, should do his duty fearlessly as such attorney, and should assume no other responsibility; that if he, the sheriff, refused to obey the writ of habeas corpus, the law should be enforced against him. This did not suit the conspirators.

During Sunday Mr. Liston called several times upon the constable, who had the writ, to arrest Norris and his part}' as fugitives from justice, and requested him to serve it, but he replied, that his orders were not to serve it unless they attempted to leave the town. It would seem that their object was to have Norris and his party arrested, and then offer that as an excuse for not appearing at the trial of the habeas corpus on Monday morning; but in this they were foiled, as they were at perfect liberty from Saturday night until they left town, several days after, and could have ap])eai-ed at the trial had they seen proper.

During Saturday and Sunday Mr. Norris seemed very anxious to jiersiiade tlie people that he was a kind and indulgent master, in order to create a favorable public opinion. In several different conversations he stated that he gave his negroes ground to cultivate tor themselves, and many other privileges, that he permitted them to go to Lawrenceburg, in Indiana, whenever they pleased, to sell their trarden stuff, and that they had taken advantage of this liherty to run away.

Early Monday morning Mr. Liston stated to Mr. Crocker that Norrit. was very anxious to prove, on the coming trial, that the negroes were his property, to satisfy the citizens. As the case stood, he could not legally introduce such testimony, for he claimed to hold them by a writ issued under a State law, which the U. S. Supreme Court liad decided to be unconstitutional and void. The sheriff would be compelled in his return, to set up this writ, as his authdiity for holding them in custody, and an exception to the sufficiency of the return would raise tlie question, under which no evidence could be offered. The oljject of the request seems to have been to obtain a refusal to admit the testimony before the issue was made up, and then adduce that as evidence of an unwillingness to grant a fair trial. But in this they were foiled, for the request was immediately acceded to, Mr. Crocker stating that he was willing to waive all tecimical matters and rest the case upon the question of freedom or sla%'ery. This, however, did not suit their designs; for, when the trial came on, Norris refused to appear, saying that he did not want the negroes, tinit lie could make the citizens pay for them, which was all lie wanted.

The sheriii", in his return to the writ of haheas corpus, stated that he held the captives in custody, as the agent of Norris, under the State writ, which was set forth in full. A replication to this return was filed, sworn to by Lewis Powell, excepting to the sufficiency of the return, and alleging that they were free persons and not slaves. One of Norris' attornej's and several of his party were present at the trial, but refused to appear for Norris. The case of Prigg vs. Pennsylvania, 16th Peters' Reports, in which the U. S. Supreme Court declare that all laws passed by the States in relation to fugitives from labor are unconstitutional and void, was read to the court, and several witnesses e.xamined in relation to the facts of the case. The court, after a full and fair hearing of the case, again ordered the captives to be discliarged . The colored friends and neighbors of the captives immediately came forward, conducted them out of the court-house to a wagon, and quietly rode off home with them. On the bridge adjacent the town they halted, and made the welkin ring witli their cheers for liberty. They rode off, singing the songs ot freedom, rejoicing over the fortunate escape of their friends from the horrible fate of slavery. Thus ended one of the most exciting scenes ever witnessed in Northern Indiana. The grand jury refused to find an indictment against the Kentuckiaus for a riot, and in a few days after they qnietly departed for their homes, with new views of Northern feeling on the subject of slavery.

The citizens of South Bend generally, without distinction of party, evinced the strongest feeling of sympathy for the oppressed. The trials called forth crowds to hear tlie arguments. The presence of the poor, trembling captives in their weak and helpless condition, surrounded by a partj- of armed men in a court of justice, was a practical exhibition of slavery, which needed only to be seen to stir up the deepest fountain of feeling. The Kentuckians were looked upon almost universally with loathing and abhorrence. The sight of a family thus torn from a happy home, separated from those they held most dear, with nothing but slavery, hopeless, lifelong bondage staring them in the face, made our citizens feel that nothing should be left undone to save them from such a horrid fate.

" Never shall I forget my feelings, as i stood among them in their dark cell in prison, when that mother, with streaming eyes and heaving breast, fell on her krees, and begged me to save them from slavery. Oh! what anguish filled those hearts! Who, possessing the heart of a man, could resist such an appeal? For one, I could not, and whatever cold, calculating conservatism might say, I felt then, that there is a ' higher law,' written by the finger of God upon the hearts of men, speaking in resistless tones, ' Tims saith the Lord, execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor.' - Jer. xxii:3. Never can I forget an interview I afterward had with the husband and father of this family', who came to express his feelings of gratitude for my efforts in their behalf The best of his days liad been spent toiling for others living in luxury. Said he, ' I once had a wife; she was taken from me and sold South; I have never seen her since; I know not whether she is dead or alive, and when the news came, that this, my second wife, was in the hands of the Kentuckians, I felt that I had nothing more to live for,' and he wept like a child."

Dec. 21, 1849, Norris commenced suit in the United States Circuit Court, for the District of Indiana, against Leander B. Newton, George W. Horton, Edwio B. Crocker, Solomon W. Pahner, David Jodon, William Wilhnington, Lot Day, Jr., Amable M. Lapiere, and Wright Maudlin, to recover the value of the negroes and other damages. Mr. Maudlin being a resident of Michigan, the suit was afterward dismissed as to him. The declaration tiled charged the defendants with having knowingly harbored, and concealed, and aided the four negroes to escape from the plaintiff, stating them to be worth $2,500. The court commenced its session on the 3d Monday in May, 1S50. The plaintiff appeared by O. H. Smith and J. A. Liston,' and the defendants by Joseph G. Marshall and J. L. Jernegan, their attorneys. The defendants demurred to the declaration on the ground that the suit was founded on the act of Congress of Feb. 12, 1793, and that no reference was made to the statute in the declaration, referring to the opinion of Judge McLean, in the case uf Jones vs. Vanzandt"2 McLean's Rep., 630, where the judge says: " An exception is taken to the fourth count, that it does not conclude against the form of the statute. If an action be founded exclusively upon the statute, and cannot be maintained at common law, a reference to the statute, as showing the right of the plaintiff, it seems to me is essential. The defendant is charged with harboring the slaves of the plaintiff, who had escaped from his service in Kentucky. But the wrong charged is no legal wrong, except as it is made so by statute; and the fourth count does not refer to the statute. The statute is a public one, but it is the foundation, and the only foundation, of the plaintiff's right. It seems to me that the declaration must refer to the statute, as an essential part of the plaintiff's right," citing 1 Chitty's Pleading, 246; 1 Gallison, 257 and 261; 1 Saunders, 135 n. This decision, made by one of the judges of the U. S. Supreme Court, was precisely in point to sustain the demurrers. If the demurrers had been sustained, the plaintiff would have been compelled to amend his declaration, which would have continued the case to the next term, at his costs, amounting to about $1,000. The demurrers were most unceremoniously overruled by Judge Huntington, who was officiating at this time.

corpus were set up as a defense to the action, thus raising the great question as to the riglit of alleged fugitives from labor to the writ of habeas corpus. The plaintiff moved to reject these special pleas, and as the question was an important one, the argument was deferred until Judge McLean should arrive from AVashington City.

In arguing the motion the counsel for the plaintiff took the bold ground that a person arrested as a fugitive slave had no right to the writ of habeas corpus, even though tlie master had made no proof of his claim, or obtained a certificate under the act of Congress; and that all who assisted in procuring, with the officer that served, and the judge that tried the writ, were trespassers and liable to the plaintiff in damages. On the other hand it was contended that it was a sacred writ, secured by the express terms of the Constitution of the United States, and of the State of Indiana, and the laws of the land, and that all persons, without distinction," were entitled to its benefits. Judge McLean decided the motion, without expressing his opinion upon these points, upon a mere technical objection, that the pleas amounted to the general issue, and he therefore rejected them.

The case at last came to trial. The jury was duly empaneled. In the preceding pages is substantially set forth the evidence as it was given to the jury. The following is the amount claimed: Lucy, 40 years of age, $.500; Lewis, 20, $800; George, 16, $750; James, 14, $700; plaintifi''s e.xpenses at South Bend, $165.80.

The charge to the jury by Judge McLean favored the claim ot the alleged owner of the slaves, and the jury brought in a verdict against the defendants and assessed the damages at $2,856. March 29, 1855, the United States marshal sold a quantity of real estate owned by some of the parties in the suit to satisfy it.

Between the spring and fall terms of the Circuit Court, in 1850, the plaintiff commenced 12 suits, against 15 defendants, to recover in each suit the penalty of $500 under the act of 1793. The counsel for the plaintiff gave it out that they intended to commence about 25 additional suits, for the penalty; and if successful in them all, they would have recovered judgments to the amount of about $15,- 000 to $20,000. On the ISth day of September, 1850, the new fugitive law was passed by Congress, punishing the same offenses by fine not exceeding $1,000, and imprisonment not exceeding six months. At the November term, 1850, the defendants appeared and filed demurrers to the declarations.

Jernegan and Niles, for defendants, insisted on the following points in support of the demurrer. 1. The act respecting fugitives from labor, adopted Sept. IS, 1850. inflicts a greater punishment than the law of 1793. for the same offenses; 2. Anew statute, imposing a new penalty, repeals the prior law by implication - citing 4 Burrows, 2026; 5 Pick., 168; 21 Pick., 373; 9 New Hampshire, 59; 2 Dana, 330, 344; 3. Such repeal puts an end to all suits, whether pending at the time, or commenced after the passage of the new law, unless there be a saving clause, which there is not in

1. The act of 1850 applies only to offenses occurring after its passage. 2. The penalties of the latter actare cumulative. Adding new penalties by law will not operate as a repeal of a prior law, unless there is a repealing clause, which there is not in this case - citing 1 Cowper, 297; 9 Bacon's Abridgment, Bouvier's Edition, 226. 3. The plaintiff had a vested right to the penalty of $500, which the act of Congress has not takeu away. 4. The act of 1850 is an " amendment and supplementary " to the act of 1793, by its express terms.

J. A. Liston,*for plaintiff, insisted that the two acts were not inconsistent with, or repugnant to each other; that they merely adopt different modes of recovering fugitives, imposing different penalties on those who violate the provisions of either; that a claimant can now pursue the remedy prescribed by the act of 1793, and if a person interfere with him in violation of that law, he can recover the penalty of $500; but if he should elect to proceed under the law of 1850, a person violating that law would be punished by fine and imprisonment.

The question was fully argued, occupying two entire days, and the court took the matter under advisement, until the spring term; and at the May term, 1851, the court decided in favor of the defendants, but as the plaintiff was desirous of having the points decided by the United States Supreme Court, the court, pro forma, certified to a difference of opinion, which is the only way the question can be carried up to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court.

More than a quarter of a century has passed since the exciting events narrated formed a topic of the day. The drama of 1849 has become history. Of the actors, several have passed away, while others remain to glory in ths triumph of their cause, to see the last vestige of slavery swept away, and all men equal before the constitution and laws of their country.