testimony. Nothing was urged to impugn their veracity. The Commissioner says their "integrity is admitted," and "no imputation of bias could be attached" to them. So, to decide between these two, Mr. Loring takes the admissions of the fugitive, alleged to have been made under duress, in the presence of his " master," made in gaol; when he was surrounded by armed ruffians ; when he was " intimidated" by fear, — admissions which Mr. Burns denied to the last, even after the decision. This was the proof of identity!
The record called Burns a man with "dark complexion." The prisoner is a "full-blooded negro." His complexion is black almost as my coat. The record spoke of Burns as having a scar on his right hand. The right hand of this man had been broken; it was so badly injured that when it was opened he could only shut it by grasping it with his left. The bone stuck out prominent. The kidnapper's witness testified that Bums was in Virginia on the 19th of March. Several witnesses—I know not how many—testified that he was in Boston nineteen days before! Mr. Brent stated nothing to show that he had ever had any particular knowledge of Mr. Burns, or particularly observed his person. Some of the witnesses for the prisoner did not testify merely from general observation of his form or features, but they stated that they had noted especially the scar on his cheek, and his broken hand, and they knew him to be the man. Besides, this testimony is of multiplied force, not being that of so many to one fact; that of each stands by itself. There was a cloud of witnesses to prove that Mr. Bums was in Boston from the 1st of March. If their evidence could be invalidated, it was not attacked in court. Their fairness was admitted.
Not many years ago, a woman was on trial in Boston for the murder of her own child. At first she pleaded guilty, and, weeping, stated the motives which led to the unnatural crime. But the court interfered, induced her to retract the plea, and to make a defence. And in spite of her voluntary admissions made in court, she was acquitted—for there was not evidence to warrant a legal conviction.
Mr. Loring seemed to regard Slavery as a crimen exceptum; and when a man is charged with it he is presup-
