A History of the Trial of Castner Hanway and Others, for Treason, at Philadelphia in November, 1851 / With an Introduction upon the History of the Slave Question

by Member of the Philadelphia bar

On the next day, like bills were returned against S. Williams, J. Hammond, H. Curtis, W. Williams, W. Thomas and N. Ferd.

The bill against Noah Buley was ignored.

On the following Monday, the 6th of October, the U. S. Circuit Court, in which the prisoners were to be tried, held its session. The District Attorney moved for a special venire to issue to the Marshal to summon 108 Jurors, 12 of whom were to be from Lancaster County, “to try the charges against Elijah Lewis and 37 others who had been committed for treason against the United States growing out of the murderous outrage at Christiana.” He announced that he would move for the arraignment of the prisoners on the following Thursday, and that the fourth Monday of November had been fixed for the trials. Judge Grier said that such a motion was strictly proper, and he directed the Marshal “to summon men of the highest respectability of character, for intelligence, integrity and conscientiousness, in the community, and to inform them that their attendance will be enforced by the Court, and that no excuse but sickness would be received for non-attendance.”

The arraignment did not take place the next Thursday, for reasons best known to the District Attorney. No further public proceedings were had until the trial. In the mean time the Traitors were made as comfortable by the attentions of their friends as the rules of the prison permitted. Though the building was erected at an enormous expense, it is badly ventilated and miserably heated. Yet the rules did not permit any of the prisoners to have fire in their cells, which at that season of the year was absolutely essential to their comfort. Some of them, predisposed to pulmonary complaints, suffered severely on account of this privation. Before the termination of the trial the Court ordered the Marshal to provide more suitable quarters for two of them, representations having been made by their counsel that this precaution was necessary to preserve their health and probably their lives.

On Sunday morning, Nov. 9, about 4 o’clock, two of the witnesses for the prosecution, who had been detained in the Debtors apartment of the Moyamensing Prison, made their escape, by means of the shutters of their cells and their blankets. A white man who was under confinement on another charge went with them.

On Tuesday morning, in the District Court, the District Attorney, after stating the facts, asked for a writ of Habeas Corpus directed to the keeper of the Debtor’s apartment, returnable on the following Friday, directing him to bring forth the runaways. On Friday, the keeper asked for more time to make answer, and the following Monday was appointed. On Monday, it appeared by the statements of some of the counsel for the defence that the truant witnesses were more important for the cause of the prisoners than for the prosecution, and they came into court to complain of the escape as prejudicing their clients. The District Attorney undertook to controvert this position, and argued that because these witnesses were receiving $1.25 per day from the United States while in confinement, more than they could have earned if at liberty, their escape was not their own act and deed. A strange and novel doctrine! Most men, whatever their complexion, would prefer the light and air of heaven at 50 cents per day, to a cell 8 by 12, in a prison notorious for its poor ventilation, at $1.25. This was, however, the only evidence of “assistance from without,” which the U. S. Counsel so frequently insinuated, and upon which Mr. Brent, in his official report, rings such doleful changes, charging treachery on the part of some officer within the walls of the prison. The public was therefore informed by one official dignitary, that these witnesses were assisted from without; another tells us assistance came from within.

Leaving out of the question the universal preference for the outside of prison walls, there are two circumstances to be considered in relation to this escape, which, when told, the public will be as well able to surmise the truth as any attornies, whether in or out of office. These fugitives were confined as witnesses, not as defendants upon any charge. Their friends, or the friends of emancipation, had not the same access to them the law gave to the prisoners. Being detained to testify on behalf of the United States, they were under the strict and especial charge of the government officers.

Besides, the Moyamensing prison is notoriously insecure. Scarcely a month passes by that there are not escapes. The iron bars in the windows of each cell are merely let into the mortar, which a prisoner has only to remove with his knife. The bar can then easily be displaced; and if a little management is used to escape the observation of the keepers, a defendant need not wait for the verdict of a jury to restore him to liberty.

On the investigation of the law relating to the matter, it was found that the keeper of the debtor’s apartment was not amenable to the United States District Court. The inquiry was accordingly dropped, informally.

On the same morning, at the instance of the District Attorney, it was ordered that the bills against the prisoners be certified to the U. S. Circuit Court, and he announced that Castner Hanway would be tried on the following Monday. John Jackson, it was also said, would be tried immediately after Hanway.