posed to be guilty, and must be denied the usual means of defence. So out of the victim's own mouth he extorts the proof that this is the man named in the records.
A man not known to anvbody in court brings a paper from Alexandria claiming Anthony Sums as his slave; the paper was drawn up five hundred miles off; in the absence of Mr. Burns; by his enemies, who sought for his liberty and more than his life. He brought one witness to testify to the identity of the man, who says that, in his fear, Burns said, "I am the man." But seven witnesses, whose veracity was not impeached in the court, testify that the prisoner was in Boston in the early part of March; and therefore it appears that he is not Burns who was in Virginia on the 19th of March, and thence escaped on the 24th. To decide between the two testimonies—that of one Yirginian under circumstances that would bias the fairest mind, and seven Bostonians free from all bias—the Commissioner takes the words put into the mouth of Mr. Burns.
Now, the Fugitive Slave Bill provides that the testimony of the fugitive shall not be received as evidence in the case Mr. Loring avoids that difficulty. He does not call it "testimony" or "evidence." He calls it "admissions;" accepts it to prove the "identity," and decides the case against him. But who proves that Mr. Burns made the admissions? There are two witnesses: 1. A man hired to kidnap him, one of the Marshal's "guard," a spy, a hired informer, set to watch the prisoner and make inquisition. Of what value was his testimony? 2. Mr. Brent, who had come five hundred miles to assist in catching a runaway slave, and claimed Mr. Burns as the slave. This was the only valuable witness to prove the admission. So the admission ia proved by the admission of Mr. Brent, and the testimony of Mr. Brent is proved by the admission! Excellent Fugitive Slave Bill "evidence!" Brent confirms Brent! There is, I think, a well-known axiom of the conmion law, that "admissions shall go in entire"—all that the prisoner said. Now, Mr, Loring rules in just what serves the interest of the claimant, and rules out everything that serves Mr. Bums's interest. And is that Massachusetts justice?
Remember, too, that Commissioner Loring is the whole
