§ 45. Ottoman case.—Similar indignation was felt in Boston over the case of Captain Hannum of the brig Ottoman. He had found a runaway concealed on board, but had set sail to return, evidently with the intention of taking the man back into captivity. A steamer was sent out to rescue the slave, but the Ottoman managed to elude it, and the man was lost. At a meeting held September 24, 1846, a committee was appointed for the purpose of preventing similar outrages.[181]
Interstate Relations.
§ 46. Interstate relations.—The spirit of opposition to the execution of the Fugitive Slave Law made itself felt, not only in popular demonstrations and in legislation, but in interstate relations. We have already noticed the Prigg case,[182] and its effect in relieving the States from any responsibility in the enforcement of the law. Other States took advantage of this decision, and of the general principle of international law, that one nation or state is not bound to enforce the municipal law of another.
§ 47. Boston and Isaac cases (1837-1839).—In 1837 a runaway was found on the ship Boston, then on her homeward voyage from Georgia to Maine. After landing, the slave succeeded in getting to Canada. The Governor of Georgia charged the captain with slave-stealing, and demanded his return as a fugitive from justice. The Governor of Maine would not comply with the request, because, as he said, the laws of that State recognized slaves not as property, but as persons. The indignant legislature of Georgia adopted resolutions calling upon Congress so to amend the laws that the Governor of Maine should be compelled to give up slave stealers as fugitives from justice. Resolutions were presented in the United States Senate, but no action was taken.[183]
The refusal to use State machinery against fugitives extended to the process of extradition against persons connected with the rescue of slaves. Thus in the Isaac case, in 1839, Virginia asked New York for the arrest of three colored men who were accused of abetting a slave's escape. The Governor of New York returned answer, that no State could demand the surrender of a fugitive from justice for an act which was made criminal only by its own legislation.[184]
§ 48. Ohio and Kentucky case.—Kentucky, in 1848, demanded from the Governor of Ohio the extradition of fifteen persons on the charge of aiding the escape of a fugitive. Governor Bell refused, on the ground that Ohio laws did not recognize property in man.[185]
Prosecutions. Act of 1850.
§ 49. Prosecutions.—The effects of the aid and protection thus given fugitives by Northern people or governments awakened among the slaveholders a feeling of wrong and indignation. The Fugitive Slave Law was clear, and they determined to carry it out to the letter. They began, therefore, energetically to prosecute people for aiding and harboring escaping slaves. The case just mentioned shows how difficult it was to secure prosecutions beyond the State boundaries. When the offence occurred within the bounds of a slave State, the judgments were most severe, and the heaviest possible fines and longest terms of imprisonment were inflicted for simple acts of charity.
§ 50. Van Zandt, Pearl, and Walker cases.—Mr. Van Zandt, returning into the country from Cincinnati one day in 1840, took nine fugitive slaves from Kentucky into his farm wagon. He was stopped by three persons, and all but two of the slaves were recaptured. Mr. Van Zandt was arrested, taken into court, and fined twelve thousand dollars, which exhausted his entire property.[186]
A still more severe penalty was that imposed upon Captain Drayton, of the schooner Pearl, in 1848. He took on board seventy-five fugitive slaves, and sailed up the Potomac. An armed steamer, sent in pursuit, overtook them and brought them back. Captain Drayton and another officer of the schooner were placed in prison, where they remained for twenty years, and at last were relieved only through the efforts of Charles Sumner.[187]