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

During the week, the preparations made on both sides were conducted in private; but one or two matters that excited some attention were permitted to make their way into the public prints. The entire private history of the difficulty which required the umpirage of the authorities at Washington, would be peculiarly piquant. But we have undertaken only an epitome of such matters as were made public, and would be digressing from the course marked out, were we to go “behind the scenes.”

It appears that as soon as the preliminary examinations were concluded, and it was determined to try the offenders upon the charge of treason against the United States, intimation was received from Washington by the authorities in Philadelphia, that the Administration desired no pains should be spared in conducting the trials with energy, and in a style worthy the occasion. The learned District Attorney for the United States obeyed these instructions to the very letter. Counsel were retained to assist him. The country was searched to procure the necessary evidence. Arguments were prepared beforehand, and briefs drawn by skilful hands to be used at the proper time. Before these preliminaries were quite concluded, letters were received from the Attorney-General of a neighboring State, which, by their tone, plainly showed that the writer considered himself entitled to the management of the whole matter, and offers, it is said, were made to the authorities here and their colleagues, to take the control of such portions of the trials as this professional usurper chose to assign them? No proposition like this could be entertained. The dramatis personæ had all been assigned their parts, and had studied their speeches. The machinery had been adjusted for a certain number of wheels, and more than these would clog the movement. Answer was made that there were no vacancies to be supplied; but if the Attorney-General chose to be present, some alteration might, perhaps, be made in the programme.

The chief Executive of the State he represented, would not permit his officer to be thus rebuffed. Complaint was formally lodged at Washington, the result of which was, that the whole management of the case was altered. The then Secretary of State wished to compromise; and when the District Attorney of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania arrived from Philadelphia, he was told that the affair was unfortunate indeed, but an alteration was unavoidable. The Attorney-General must be allowed to have his own way; and those who had expended their time and talents in making the proper preparations of the case, were to acknowledge him as their leader.

The effect of this misunderstanding was manifest upon the trial, and to it is solely attributable the fact that, professionally speaking, the management of the prosecution in Hanway’s case was, in many respects, a complete blunder. Had the original intentions been pursued to completion, the Bar of Philadelphia would not have been surprised by the imbecile efforts that were made from time to time to bolster up the mistakes and omissions constantly resulting from a misapprehension of both the law and the facts of the case, on the part of those who had assumed its management.

The papers of Saturday, the 22d of November, announced that the trials would begin on Monday, and added, that “Such conveniences as the limited room in which the trials are to take place (would allow) have been prepared; but they are totally inadequate to the occasion, and we shall not be surprised to hear of hundreds being disappointed who would like to hear the evidence and the arguments of counsel.”

This alone would be a sufficient answer to the absurdity of the statements made by Mr. Brent in his official report, in regard to the favors shown by the Marshal to the male and female members of the Anti-Slavery Society, and to free negroes. The extract is made from “Cummings’ Evening Bulletin,”—the authority Mr. Brent cites in support of his allegations. It was penned before the commencement of the trial, and may be considered as the testimony of an unbiassed witness.

If, however, the Governor of Maryland, to whom Mr. Brent’s report is made, had taken the trouble to examine the files of the paper in question, he would have found that on the first day of the trial, the reporter says: “Long before the hour arrived for the Court to meet, the seats were occupied by white men, and not a female made her appearance. We did not see a colored man in the room.” In the account of the second day, he says: “A very few members of the Society of Friends were present; and these few were probably the personal friends of Hanway.” In the report of the third day, no remark is made about persons present. The reporter, however, says: “The seating of every person who desires to be present cannot, of course, be accomplished.” On the fourth day, it is said: “The same absence of colored persons is visible.” Throughout the whole trial, no mention is made of colored persons in the Court room, except those brought up from prison to be identified by the witness Kline.

The exclusion of “a respectable gentleman from Maryland,” one of the witnesses,—mentioned by Mr. B., is not a case of extremity. During the examination of the witnesses who were called to testify to Kline’s good character, a gentleman of Philadelphia, a member of the Bar, and consequently an officer of the Court, who had been subpœnaed, when called to the stand, before he answered the questions asked him, complained to the Judges that he had been denied admission to the Court room. Towards the close of the trial another member of the Bar complained to the Court of the same thing. In both cases the Marshal was called to account, and justified the conduct of his deputies by saying the room was too small to admit all who desired to be present. The Judge told him to do the best he could, and that all members of the Bar must be admitted.

The writer of this went away more than a dozen times because it was impossible to get near the door, and saw hundreds do the same thing. He was personally known to every officer of the Court, and could have gained admission had there been standing room.

Those who wished to hear and see, secured their places betimes. If Mr. Brent had read his favorite authority more closely, he would have seen that the reporter remarks jocosely upon the perseverance and patience of those who “secured their seats by seven o’clock A. M., and waited till ten for the opening of the Court.” Had the “respectable gentleman from Maryland” been out of bed in time, he might have secured a front seat.