In the report by Col. John Butler of the Survey of the Settlement at Niagara, August 25, 1782 (Can. Arch., Series B, 169, p. 1), McGregor Van-Every is named as the head of a family. He was married, without children, hired men or slaves, had 3 horses, no cows, sheep or hogs, 8 acres of "clear land" and raised 4 bushels of Indian corn and 40 of potatoes but no wheat or oats. His neighbor, Thomas McMicken, was married, had two young sons, one hired man and one male slave. He had two horses, 1 cow and 20 hogs, and raised ten bushels of Indian corn, 10 of oats and 10 of potatoes (no wheat) on his 8 acres of "clear land."

[16] John White called to the Bar in 1785 at the Inner Temple (probably); he practised for a time but unsuccessfully in Jamaica and through the influence of his brother-in-law, Samuel Shepherd and of Chief Justice Osgoode was appointed the first Attorney General of Upper Canada. He arrived in the Province in the summer of 1792 and was elected a member of the first House of Assembly for Leeds and Frontenac. He was an active and useful member. It is probable, but the existing records do not make it certain, that it was he who introduced and had charge in the House of Assembly of the Bill for the abolition of slavery passed in 1793, shortly to be mentioned. In January, 1800, he was killed in a duel at York, later Toronto, by Major John Small, Clerk of the Executive Council. His will, drawn by himself after his fatal wound, is still extant in the Court of Probate records at Toronto. One clause reads: "I desire to be rolled up in a sheet and not buried fantastically, and that I may be buried at the back of my own house." Buried in his garden at his direction, his bones were accidentally uncovered in 1871 and reverently buried in Toronto. His manuscript diary is still extant, a copy being in the possession of the writer.

[17] The statute is (1793) 33 Geo. III, c. 7, (U. C.). The Parliament of Upper Canada had two Houses, the Legislative Council, an Upper House, appointed by the Crown and the Legislative Assembly, a Lower House or House of Commons, as it was sometimes called, elected by the people. The Lieutenant Governor gave the royal assent. The bill was introduced in the Lower House, probably by Attorney General White, as stated in last note, and read the first time, June 19. It went to the committee of the whole June 25, and was the same day reported out. On June 26 it was read the third time, passed and sent up for concurrence. The Legislative Council read it the same day for the first time, went into Committee over it the next day, June 28, and July I, when it was reported out with amendments, passed and sent down to the Commons July 2. That House promptly concurred and sent the bill back the same day. See the official reports; Ont. Arch. Reports for 1910 (Toronto, 1911), pp. 25, 26, 27, 28, 32, 33, Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909 (Toronto, 1911), pp. 33, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42.

The first Fugitive Slave Law was passed by the United States in 1793. Three years afterwards occurred an episode, little known and less commented upon, showing very clearly the views of George Washington on the subject of fugitive slaves, at least, of those slaves who were his own.

A slave girl of his escaped and made her way to Portsmouth, N. H. Washington, on discovering her place of refuge, wrote concerning her to Joseph Whipple, the Collector at Portsmouth, November 28, 1796. The letter is still extant. It is of three full pages and was sold in London in 1877 for ten guineas (Magazine of American History, Vol. 1, December, 1877, p. 759). Charles Sumner had it in his hands when he made the speech reported in Charles Summer's Works, Vol. III, p. 177. Washington in the letter described the fugitive and particularly expressed the desire of "her mistress," Mrs. Washington, for her return to Alexandria. He feared public opinion in New Hampshire, for he added

"I do not mean however, by this request that such violent measures should be used as would excite a mob or riot which might be the case if she has adherents; or even uneasy sensations in the minds of well-disposed citizens. Rather than either of these should happen, I would forgo her services altogether and the example also which is of infinite more importance."

In other words, "if the slave girl has no friends or 'adherents'" send her back to slavery—if she has and they would actively oppose her return, let her go—and even if it only be that "well-disposed citizens" disapprove of her capture and return, let her remain free.

There may be some difficulty in justifying Washington's course by the opinion of Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologics, 1 ma., 2 dae., Quaest. XCVI, Art. 4), who says that an unjust law is not binding in conscience "nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem." Aquinas is speaking of an unjust law which may be resisted unless scandal or tumult would result from resistance. Washington is speaking of a law which he considers right, but which he would not enforce if it should occasion such evils. The analogy does not hold as the editor of Charles Sumner's Works seems to think (Vol. III, p. 178, note).

Whipple answered from Portsmouth, December 22, 1796:

"I will now, Sir, agreeably to your desire, send her to Alexandria if it be practicable without the consequences which you except—that of exciting a riot or a mob or creating uneasy sensations in the minds of well disposed persons. The first cannot be calculated beforehand; it will be governed by the popular opinion of the moment or the circumstances that may arise in the transaction. The latter may be sought into and judged of by conversing with such persons without discovering the occasion. So far as I have had opportunity, I perceive that different sentiments are entertained on the subject."

Whipple made enquiry. Public opinion in Portsmouth was adverse to the return of the fugitive. She was unmolested and lived out a long life in Portsmouth and Kittery.

Nothing more clearly and impressively shows the veneration felt by his countrymen for George Washington than the praise the fearless, outspoken, uncompromising hater of slavery, Charles Sumner, of the conduct of the President in this transaction. Sumner considered the poor slave girl "a monument of the just forbearance of him whom we aptly call Father of his Country.... While a slaveholder and seeking the return of a fugitive, he has left in permanent record a rule of conduct which if adopted by his country will make slave hunting impossible." With almost any other man, Sumner would have no praise or reverence for a desire to force a fugitive back into slavery unless prevented by fear of mob or riot or adverse public opinion.

In the same letter Washington gives what may be considered a reason or excuse for his demand. "However well disposed I might be to a gradual abolition, or even to an entire emancipation of that description of people, if the latter was itself practicable at this moment, it would neither be expedient nor just to reward unfaithfulness with a premature preference and thereby discontent beforehand the minds of all her fellow servants who by their steady attachment are far more deserving than herself of favour."

This is the familiar pretext of the master, private or state. Those who rebel against oppression and wrong are not to be given any relief—that would be unjust to those who tamely submit. That very argument was advanced by the ruler across the sea against the proposition to come to terms with Washington and his party who had ventured to oppose the would-be master.

And it is to be noted that Washington did not free those "who by their steady attachment are far more deserving ... of favour" till he had had all the advantage he could from their services—he did indeed free them by his will, but only after the death of his wife.

Sumner cannot be said to minimize his merits when he says "He was at the time a slaveholder—often expressing himself with various degrees of force against slavery, and promising his suffrage for its abolition, he did not see this wrong as he saw it at the close of life." (Sumner's Works, Vol. III, pp. 759 sq.)

[18] Vermont excluded slavery by her Bill of Rights (1777), Pennsylvania and Massachusetts passed legislation somewhat similar to that of Upper Canada in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island in 1784, New Hampshire by her Constitution in 1792, Vermont in the same way in 1793: New York began in 1799 and completed the work in 1827, New Jersey 1829; Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa were organized as a Territory in 1787 and slavery forbidden by the Ordinance, July 13, 1787, but it was in fact known in part of the Territory for a score of years. A few slaves were held in Michigan by tolerance until far into the nineteenth century notwithstanding the prohibition of the fundamental law (Mich. Hist. Coll., VII, p. 524). Maine as such, never had slavery having separated from Massachusetts in 1820 after the Act of 1780, although it would seem that as late as 1833 the Supreme Court of Massachusetts left it open when slavery was abolished in that State (Commonwealth v. Aves, 18 Pick. 193, 209). (See Cobb's Slavery, pp. clxxi, clxxii, 209; Sir Harry H. Johnston's The Negro in the New World, an exceedingly valuable and interesting work but not wholly reliable in minutiae, pp. 355 et seq.)

[19] Simcoe was almost certainly the prime mover in the legislation of 1793. When giving the royal assent to the bill he said: "The Act for the gradual abolition of Slavery in this Colony, which it has been thought expedient to frame, in no respect meets from me a more cheerful concurrence than in that provision which repeals the power heretofore held by the Executive Branch of the Constitution and precludes it from giving sanction to the importation of slaves, and I cannot but anticipate with singular pleasure that such persons as may be in that unhappy condition which sound policy and humanity unite to condemn, added to their own protection from all undue severity by the law of the land may henceforth look forward with certainty to the emancipation of their offspring." (See Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909, pp. 42-43.) I do not understand the allusion to "protection from undue severity by the Law of the land." There had been no change in the law, and undue severity to slaves was prevented only by public opinion. It is practically certain that no such bill as that of 1798 would have been promoted with Simcoe at the head of the government as his sentiments were too well known.

[20] Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1909, pp. 64, 69, 70, 71, 74; ibid. for 1910, pp. 67, 68, 69, 70.

The bill was introduced in the Lower House by Christopher Robinson, member for Addington and Ontario, Ontario being then comprised of the St. Lawrence and Lake Ontario Islands, and having nothing in common with the present County of Ontario. He was a Virginian loyalist, who in 1784 emigrated to New Brunswick, and in 1788 to that part of Canada later Lower Canada and in 1792 to Upper Canada. He lived in Kingston till 1798 and then came to York, later Toronto, but died three weeks afterwards. He was one of the lawyers who took part in the inauguration of the Law Society of Upper Canada at Wilson's Tavern, Newark, in July, 1797, and was an active and successful practitioner. His ability was great, but his fame is swallowed up by that of his more famous son, Sir John Beverley Robinson, the first Canadian Chief Justice of Upper Canada, and of his grandson, the much loved and much admired Christopher Robinson, Q.C., of our own time. Accustomed from infancy to slavery, he saw no great harm in it—no doubt he saw it in its best form.

The chief opponent of the bill was Robert Isaac Dey Gray, the young solicitor general. John White was not in this the second house. The son of Major James Gray, a half-pay British Officer, he studied law in Canada. He was elected member of the House of Assembly for Stormont in the election of 1796 and again in 1804. He was appointed the first Solicitor General in 1797 and was drowned in 1804 in the Speedy disaster. An Indian, Ogetonicut, accused of a murder in the Newcastle District, was captured on the York Peninsula, now Toronto or Hiawatha Island, in the Home District, and had to be sent to Newcastle, now Presqu' Isle Point near Brighton, in the Newcastle District, for trial. The Government Schooner Speedy sailed for Newcastle with the Assize Judge Gray; Macdonell, who was to defend the Indian; the Indian prisoner, Indian interpreters, witnesses, the High Constable of York and certain inhabitants of York. It was lost, captain, crew and passengers—spurlos versenkt.

The motion for the three months' hoist in the Upper House was made by the Honorable Richard Cartwright seconded by the Honorable Robert Hamilton. These men, who had been partners, generally agreed on public measures and both incurred the enmity of Simcoe. He called Hamilton a Republican, then a term of reproach distinctly worse than Pro-German would be now, and Cartwright was, if anything, worse. But both were men of considerable public spirit and personal integrity. For Cartwright see The Life and Letters of Hon Richard Cartright, Toronto, 1876. For Hamilton see Riddell's edition of La Rochefoucault's Travels in Canada in 1795, Toronto, 1817, in Ont. Arch. Rep. for 1916; Miss Carnochan's Queenstown in Early Years, Niagara Hist. Soc. Pub., No. 25; Buffalo Hist. Soc. Pub., Vol. 6, pp. 73-95.

There was apparently no division in the Upper House although there were five other Councillors in addition to Cartwright and Hamilton in attendance that session viz.: McGill, Shaw, Duncan, Baby and Grant; and the bill passed committee of the whole.

[21] Slaves were valuable even in those days. A sale is recorded in Detroit of a "certain Negro man Pompey by name" for L45 New York Currency ($112.50) in October, 1794; and the purchaser sold him again January, 1795, for L50 New York Currency ($125.00). (Mich. Hist. Coll., XIV, p. 417.) But it would seem that from 1770 to 1780 the price ranged to $300 for a man and $250 for a woman (Mich. Hist. Coll., XIV, p. 659). The number of slaves in Detroit is said to have been 85 in 1773 and 179 in 1782 (Mich. Hist. Coll., VII, p. 524).

The best people in the province continued to hold slaves. On February 19, 1806, the Honourable Peter Russell, who had been administrator of the government, and therefore head of the State for three years, advertised for sale at York "A Black woman named Peggy, aged 40 years, and a Black Boy, her son, named Jupiter, aged about 15 years," both "his property," "each being servants for life"—the woman for $150 and the boy for $200, 25 per cent off for cash. William Jarvis, the secretary, two years later, March 1, 1811, had two of his slaves brought into court for stealing gold and silver out of his desk. The boy "Henry commonly called prince" was committed for trial and the girl ordered back to her master. Other instances will be found in Dr. Scadding's very interesting work, Toronto of Old, Toronto, 1873, at pp. 292 sqq.

[22] A number of interesting wills are in the Court of Probate files at Osgoode Hall, Toronto. One of them only I shall mention, viz.: that of Robert I.D. Gray, the first solicitor general of the province, whose tragic death is related above. In this will, dated August 27, 1803, a little more than a year before his death, he releases and manumits "Dorinda my black woman servant ... and all her children from the State of Slavery," in consequence of her long and faithful services to his family. He directs a fund to be formed of L1,200 or $4,800 the interest to be paid to "the said Dorinda her heirs and Assigns for ever." To John Davis, Dorinda's son, he gave 200 acres of land, Lot 17 in the Second Concession of the Township of Whitby and also L50 or $200. John, after the death of his master whose body servant and valet he was, entered the employ of Mr., afterwards Chief, Justice Powell; but he had the evil habit of drinking too much and when he was drunk he would enlist in the Army. Powell got tired of begging him off and after a final warning left him with the regiment in which he had once more enlisted. Davis is said to have been in the battle of Waterloo. He certainly crossed the ocean and returned later on to Canada. He survived till 1871, living at Cornwall, Ontario, a well-known character. With him died the last of all those who had been slaves in the old Province of Quebec or the Province of Upper Canada.

[23] Mich. Hist. Coll., XIV, p. 659.

[24] A fairly good account of the Underground Railroad will be found in William Still's Underground Railroad, Philadelphia, 1872, in W.M. Mitchell's Underground Railway, London, 1860; in W.H. Siebert's Underground Railway, New York, 1899; and in a number of other works on Slavery. Considerable space is given the subject in most works on slavery.

One branch of it ran from a point on the Ohio River, through Ohio and Michigan to Detroit; but there were many divagations, many termini, many stations: Oberlin was one of these. See Dr. A. M. Ross' Memoirs of a Reformer, Toronto, 1893, and Mich. Hist. Coll., XVII, p. 248.

[25] The Buxton Mission in the County of Kent is well known. The Wilberforce Colony in the County of Middlesex was founded by free Negroes; but they had in mind to furnish homes for future refugees. See Mr. Fred Landon's account of this settlement in the recent (1918) Transactions of the London and Middlesex Hist. Soc., pp. 30-44. For an earlier account see A. Steward's Twenty Years a Slave, Rochester, N. Y., 1857.

[26] Ross in his Memoirs gives, on page 111, 40,000, but he may be speaking for all Canada. The number is rather high for Upper Canada alone.

[27] "The Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence and the violent take it by force." There can be no doubt that the Southern Negro looked upon Canada as a paradise. I have heard a colored clergyman of high standing say that of his own personal knowledge, dying slaves in the South not infrequently expressed a hope to meet their friends in Canada.

[28] These being merely traditional and not supported by contemporary documents are more or less mythical and I do not attempt to collect the various and varying stories.

There are several stories more or less well authenticated of masters bringing slaves into Canada with the intention of taking them back again as Charles Stewart intended with his slave James Somerset and the slaves successfully asserting their freedom, resisting removal with the assistance of Canadians. Of one of the most shocking cases of wrong, if not quite kidnapping, a citizen of Toronto was the subject. John Mink, a respectable man with some Negro blood, had a livery stable on King Street, Toronto. He was also the proprietor of stage-coach lines and a man of considerable wealth. He had an only daughter of great personal beauty, and showing little trace of Negro origin. It was understood that she would marry no one but a white man, and that the father was willing to give her a handsome dowry on such a marriage. A person of pure Caucasian stock from the Southern States came to Toronto, wooed and won her. They were married and the husband took his bride to his home in the South. Not long afterwards the father was horrified to learn that the plausible scoundrel had sold his wife as a slave. He at once went South and after great exertion and much expense, he succeeded in bringing back to his house the unhappy woman, the victim of brutal treachery.

There have been told other stories of the same kind, equally harrowing, and unfortunately not ending so well, but I have not been able to verify them. The one mentioned here I owe to the late Sir Charles Moss, Chief Justice of Ontario.

[29] The same rule obtained in Lower Canada; (1827) re Joseph Fisher, 1 Stuart's L. C. Rep. 245.

[30] This is the Act (1833), 3 Will IV, c. 7 (U. C.). This came forward as cap. 96 in the Consolidated Statutes of Upper Canada 1859, but was repealed by an Act of (United) Canada (1860), 23 Vic., c. 91 (Can.).

[31] To his people he seems to have been known as Hubbard Holmes; he is always called a yellow man, whether mulatto, quadroon, octoroon or other does not appear.

[32] The contemporary accounts of this transaction, e. g., in the Christian Guardian of Toronto, and the Niagara Chronicle, are not wholly consistent. The main facts, however, are clear. Although there was some doubt as to the time, the military guard were ordered to fire. Miss Janet Carnochan has given a good account of this in Slave Rescue in Niagara, Sixty Years Ago, Niag. Hist. Soc., Pub. No. 2. It is said that "the Judge said he must go back," the fact being that the direction was by the executive and not the courts. The Reminiscences of Mrs. J. G. Currie, born at Niagara in 1829 and living there at the time of the trouble, are printed in the Niagara Hist. Soc., Pub. No. 20. Mrs. Currie gives a brief account (p. 331) and says that one of the party, one MacIntyre, had a bullet or bayonet wound in his cheek. In Miss Carnochan's account, her informant, who was the daughter of a slave who had escaped in 1802 and was herself born in Niagara in 1824, says that "the sheriff went up and down slashing with his sword and keeping the people back. Many of our people had sword cuts in their necks. They were armed with all kinds of weapons, pitchforks, flails, sticks, stones. One woman had a large stone in a stocking and many had their aprons full of stones and threw them too." Mrs. Anna Jameson, in her Sketches in Canada, ed. of 1852, London, on pp. 55-58, gives another account. She rightly makes the extradition order the governor's act, but errs in saying that "the law was too expressly and distinctly laid down and his duty as Governor was clear and imperative to give up the felon" as "by an international compact between the United States and our province, all felons are mutually surrendered." There was nothing in the common law, or in the statute of 1833 which made it the duty of the governor to order extradition, and there was no binding compact between the United States and Upper Canada such as Mrs. Jameson speaks of. No doubt the reason given by her for the order was that in vogue among the official set with whom she associated, her husband being vice-chancellor and head (treasurer) of the Law Society. The Christian Guardian, Niagara Reporter and Niagara Chronicle and St. Catharines Journal of September, October and November, 1837, contain accounts of and comments upon the occurrences, and sometimes attacks upon each other.

Deputy Sheriff Alexander McLeod was a man of some note if not notoriety. During the rebellion of 1837 and 1838 he was in the Militia of Upper Canada. He took a creditable part in the defence of Toronto against the followers of Mackenzie in December, 1837, and was afterwards stationed on the Niagara frontier. There he claimed to have taken part in the cutting out of the Steamer Caroline in which exploit a Buffalo citizen, Amos Durfee, was killed. McLeod, visiting Lewiston in New York State, in November, 1840, was arrested on the charge of murder and committed for trial. This arrest was the cause of a great deal of communication and discussion between the governments of the United States and of Great Britain, the latter claiming that what had been done by the Canadian militia was a proper public act and they demanded the surrender of McLeod. This was refused. McLeod was tried for murder at Utica, October, 1841, and acquitted, it being conclusively proved that he was not in the expedition at all.

[33] Concluded at Washington, August 9, 1842, ratification exchanged at London, October 13, 1842, proclaimed November 10, 1842; this treaty put an end to many troublesome questions, amongst them the Maine boundary which it was found impracticable to settle by Joint Commissions or by reference to a European crowned head, William, King of the Netherlands. It will be found in all the collections of treaties of Great Britain or the United States, and in most of the treaties on extradition, amongst them the useful work by John G. Hawley, Chicago, 1893 (see pp. 119 sqq.).

[34] It was held in this province that the Act of 1883 was superseded by the Ashburton Treaty in respect to the United States, but that it remained in force with respect to other countries (Reg. v. Tubber, 1854, 1, P. R., 98). Since the treaty, our government has refused to extradite where the offense charged is not included in the treaty. In re Laverne Beebe (1863), 3, P. R., 273—a case of burglary.

The provisions of the treaty were brought into full effect in Canada (Upper and Lower) by the Canadian Statute of 1849, 12, Vic., c. 19, C. S. C. (1859), c. 89.

[35] Chief Justice Sir John Beverley Robinson, Mr. Justice McLean (afterwards Chief Justice of Upper Canada) and Mr. Justice Burns.

[36] The seat of the Superior Courts in Toronto, the Palais de Justice of the Province.

[37] Mr. Samuel B. Freeman, Q.C., of Hamilton, a man of much natural eloquence, considerable knowledge of law and more of human nature; he was always ready and willing to take up the cause of one unjustly accused and was singularly successful in his defences.

I have heard it said that it was Mr. M. C. Cameron, Q.C., who so addressed the gathering, but he does not seem to have been concerned in the case in the Queen's Bench.

[38] The case is reported in (1860), 20 Up. Can., Q. B., pp. 124-193. The warrant is given at pp. 192, 193.

[39] The case is reported in (1861), 3, Ellis & Ellis Reports, Queen's Bench, p. 487; 30, Law Jour., Q. B., p. 129; 7, Jurist, N. S., p. 122; 3, Law Times, N. S., p. 622; 9, Weekly Rep., p. 255.

It was owing to this decision that the statute was passed at Westminster (1862) 25, 26, Vic., c. 20, which by sec. 1 forbids the courts in England to issue a writ of habeas corpus into any British possession which has a court with the power to issue such writ. The court was Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, and Justices Crompton, Hill and Blackburn, a very strong court. The Counsel for Anderson was the celebrated but ill-fated Edwin James. The writ was specially directed to the sheriff at Toronto, the sheriff at Brantford and the jail-keeper at Brantford. Judgment was given January 15, 1861.

[40] Common law, of course, not chancery.

[41] The court was composed of Chief Justice William Henry Draper, C.B., Mr. Justice Richards, afterwards Chief Justice successively of the Court of Common Pleas, of the Court of Queen's Bench, and, as Sir William Buell Richards, of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Mr. Justice Hagarty, afterwards Chief Justice successively of the Court of Common Pleas, of the Court of King's Bench, and, as Sir John Hawkins Hagarty, of Ontario.

Mr. Freeman was assisted in this argument by Mr. M. C. Cameron, a lawyer of the highest standing professionally and otherwise, afterwards Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, and afterwards, as Sir Matthew Cameron, Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. Counsel for the crown on both arguments were Mr. Eccles, Q.C., a man of deservedly high reputation, and Robert Alexander Harrison, afterwards Chief Justice of the Court of Queen's Bench, an exceedingly learned and accurate lawyer.

The case in the Court of Common Pleas is reported in Vol. 11, Upper Can., C. P., pp. 1 sqq.



DOCUMENTS

NOTES ON SLAVERY IN CANADA[1]

The following Notes received from the Canadian Archives Department, Ottawa, have more or less bearing upon the question of slavery in Upper Canada:

1. General James Murray, the first Governor of the new Government of Quebec, writing to John Watts, of New York, from Quebec, November 2, 1763, and speaking of the promoting of the improvement of agriculture, says:

"I must most earnestly entreat your assistance, without servants nothing can be done, had I the inclination to employ soldiers which is not the case, they would disappoint me, and Canadians will work for nobody but themselves. Black Slaves are certainly the only people to be depended upon, but it is necessary, I imagine they should be born in one or other of our Northern Colonies, the Winters here will not agree with a Native of the torrid zone, pray therefore if possible procure for me two Stout Young fellows, who have been accustomed to Country Business, and as I shall wish to see them happy, I am of opinion there is little felicity without a Communication with the Ladys, you may buy for each a clean young wife, who can wash and do the female offices about a farm, I shall begrudge no price, so hope we may, by your goodness succeed," (Can. Arch., Murray Papers, Vol. II, p. 15.)

2. D. M. Erskine, writing from New York, May 26, 1807, to Francis Gore, Lt. Governor of Upper Canada, says:

"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 24th ult enclosing a Memorial presented to you by the Proprietors of Slaves in the Western District of the Province of Upper Canada.

"I regret equally with yourself the Inconvenience which His Majesty's subjects in Upper Canada experience from the Desertions of their slaves into the Territory of the United States, and of Persons bound to them for a term of years, as also of His Majesty's soldiers and sailors; but I fear no Representation to the Government of the United States will at the present avail in checking the evils complained of, as I have frequently of late had occasion to apply to them for the Surrender of various Deserters under different circumstances, and always without success—

"The answer that has been usually given, has been. 'That the Treaty between Great Britain & the United States which alone gave them the Power to surrender Deserters having expired, it was impossible for them to exercise such an authority without the Sanction of the Laws—'

"I will however forward to His Majesty's Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Memorial above mentioned in the Hope that some arrangements may be entered into to obviate in future the great Losses which are therein described." (Can. Arch., Sundries, Upper Canada, 1807.)

3. John Beverley Robinson, Attorney General, Upper Canada, giving an opinion to the Lt. Governor, York, July 8, 1819, says the following:

"May it please Your Excellency

"In obedience to Your Excellency's commands I have perused the accompanying letter from C. C. Antrobus Esquire, His Majesty's Charge d'affaires at the Court of Washington and have attentively considered the question referred to me by Your Excellency therein—namely—'Whether the owners of several Negro slaves from the United States of America and are now resident in this Province' and I beg to express most respectfully my opinion to Your Excellency that the Legislature of this Province having adopted the Law of England as the rule of decision in all questions relative to property and civil rights, and freedom of the person being the most important civil right protected by those laws, it follows that whatever may have been the condition of these Negroes in the Country to which they formerly belonged, here they are free—For the enjoyment of all civil rights consequent to a mere residence in the country and among them the right to personal freedom as acknowledged and protected by the Laws of England in Cases similar to that under consideration, must notwithstanding any legislative enactment that may be thought to affect it, with which I am acquainted, be extended to these Negroes as well as to all others under His Majesty's Government in this Province—

"The consequence is that should any attempt be made by any person to infringe upon this right in the persons of these Negroes, they would most probably call for, and could compel the interference of those to whom the administration of our Laws is committed and I submit with the greatest deference to Your Excellency that it would not be in the power of the Executive Government in any manner to restrain or direct the Courts or Judges in the exercise of their duty upon such an application." (Can. Arch., Sundries, Upper Canada, 1819.)

4. At a meeting of the Executive Council of the Province of Lower Canada held at the Council Chamber in the Castle of St. Lewis, on Thursday, June 18, 1829, under Sir James Kempt, the Administrator of the Government, the following proceedings were had:

"Report of a Committee of the whole Council Present The Honble. the Chief Justice in the Chair, Mr. Smith, Mr. DeLery, Mr. Stewart, and Mr. Cochran on Your Excellency's Reference of a Letter from the American Secretary of State requesting that Paul Vallard accused of having stolen a Mulatto Slave from the State of Illinois may be delivered up to the Government of the United States of America together with the Slave.

"May it please Your Excellency

"The Committee have proceeded to the consideration of the subject matter of this reference with every wish and disposition to aid the Officers of the Government of the United States of America in the execution of the Laws of that Dominion and they regret therefore the more that the present application cannot in their opinion be acceded to.

"In the former Cases the Committee have acted upon the Principle which now seems to be generally understood that whenever a Crime has been committed and the Perpetrator is punishable according to the Lex Loci of the Country in which it is committed, the country in which he is found may rightfully aid the Police of the Country against which the Crime was committed in bringing the Criminal to Justice—and upon this ground have recommended that Fugitives from the United States should be delivered up.

"But the Committee conceive that the Crimes for which they are authorized to recommend the arrest of Individuals who have fled from other Countries must be such as are mala in se, and are universally admitted to be Crimes in every Nation, and that the offence of the Individual whose person is demanded must be such as to render him liable to arrest by the Law of Canada as well as by the Law of the United States.

"The state of slavery is not recognized by the Law of Canada nor does the Law admit that any Man can be the proprietor of another.

"Every Slave therefore who comes into the Province is immediately free whether he has been brought in by violence or has entered it of his own accord; and his liberty cannot from thenceforth be lawfully infringed without some Cause for which the Law of Canada has directed an arrest.

"On the other hand, the Individual from whom he has been taken cannot pretend that the Slave has been stolen from him in as much as the Law of Canada does not admit a Slave to be a subject of property.

"All of which is respectfully submitted to Your Excellency's, Wisdom." (Can. Arch., State K, p. 406.)

5. At a meeting of the Executive Council for Upper Canada, held at York, on Thursday, September 12, 1833, under Sir John Colborne, Lieutenant Governor, the following proceedings were had:

"Received a Letter from the Governor of the State of Michigan dated Detroit August 12th 1833 with a new requisition for the delivery up of Thornton Blackburn and other fugitives from Justice which was read in Council on 27th August 1833 with the following opinion of the Attorney General, as referred to him 13th July 1833.

"'ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE "'12th July 1833

"'Sir

"'I have the Honour to return the various papers relating to the subject of the requisition from the acting Governor of Michigan demanding that Thornton Blackburn and others who are stated to have fled from the justice of that country and taken refuge within this Province and now in custody at Sandwich should be given up, upon which His Excellency required my opinion whether the Law of this Province authorized him in complying with such demand or not. Had His Excellency been confined to the official requisition and the deposition that accompanied it he might I think have been warranted in delivering up those persons inasmuch as there is thereupon evidence on which according to the terms of our act (3 Wm 4th, C. 8) a magistrate would have been "warranted in apprehending and committing for trial" persons so charged who is convicted of the offence alleged viz: riot and forcible rescue and assault and battery would, if convicted, have been subject according to the Laws of this Province to one of the several punishments enumerated in the act as applicable to felonies and misdemeanors.

"'That the Governor and Council are not confined to such evidence is clear since though limited in their authority to enforce the provisions of the act against fugitives from foreign States by the condition above mentioned viz: being satisfied that the evidence would warrant commitment for trial etc. yet in coming to that conclusion they are I think bound to hear no ex parte evidence alone but matter explanatory to guide their judgment; for even tho' satisfied with their authority so to do, they are not required "to deliver up any person so charged if for any reason they shall deem it inexpedient so to do.'

"In the present case I think the evidence on oath as to facts not alluded to in the official Communication and as to the law of the United States upon the subject becomes extremely important; I mean that of Mr Cleland and Mr Alexander Fraser the Attorney for the City of Detroit. The case appears to be this—Two coloured persons named Thornton a man and his wife were claimed as slaves on behalf of some person in the State of Kentucky; that they were arrested and examined before a magistrate in Detroit and he in accordance with the law of the United States made his certificate and directed them to be delivered over as the personal property of the claimant in Kentucky; that the Sheriff took them into custody in consequence and that when one of them, (the man) was on the point of being removed from prison in order to be restored to his owner he was with circumstances of considerable violence rescued and escaped to this Province. There appears to be an error in the deposition accompanying the requisition, the wife of Thornton is there charged with being one of the persons assisting in the riot and rescue, whereas it appears that previous to the day of her husband's rescue she had eluded the Gaoler in disguise and she was then within this Province; she therefore does not appear to come within the class of offenders which the Act contemplates—viz: 'Malefactors who having committed crimes in foreign Countries have sought an asylum in this Province.'

"With regard to Thornton himself, the Attorney of Detroit who has favoured His Excellency with a certified Copy of the Law of the United States upon the subject, declares,—that the commitment to the custody of the Sheriff was illegal—and this is urged strongly as an equitable consideration against His Excellency's interference that the Sheriff detained Thornton in custody not as Sheriff but as agent for the Slave owner and that the law does not authorize commitments under such circumstances to the Sheriff, but merely that 'the owner, agent, or attorney may seize and arrest the fugitive (slave) and take him before the Judge etc: who upon proof that the person seized owes service to the claimant &c shall give a certificate thereof to such claimant, his agent or Attorney which shall be sufficient Warrant for removing the said fugitive from labour &c.'

"To this argument as to the illegality of the custody I do not attach much weight, for admitting that Thornton was not committed to the custody of Mr. Wilson as Sheriff of Wayne County, still as we may presume that the Judge's Certificate was properly given, he might not be the less legally in the custody of Mr Wilson as agent to the claimant in Kentucky; for the next section of the act of congress enacts that anyone who 'shall rescue such fugitive from such claimant or his agent &c shall forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars &c.' That the custody was legal according to the law of the United States I have little doubt; the legality there is officially recognized by the requisition and it is not a subject for His Excellency's enquiry. Upon this view of the case and considering that His Excellency in Council can only restore fugitives charged upon evidence of crimes which if proved to have been committed in this Province would subject the offender to 'Death, Corporal punishment by Pillory or whipping or by confinement at hard labour' and considering this as a Penal Act which must not be strained beyond the literal import towards those against whom it is intended to operate; the result is that our law recognizes no such custody as that of an agent acting under a warrant for removing a fugitive slave to the Territory from which he fled, this is an offence which could not be committed within this Province in any case and therefore that His Excellency in Council is not by the Act of this Province either required or authorized to deliver up the persons demanded.

"I have the Honor to be, Sir, &c., "(Signed) ROBERT S. JAMESON, Attorney General."

"The Council having again had before them the requisition of the Governor of the State of Michigan relative to the escape of certain offenders into this Province deem it mainly important to their full consideration of the question that besides his opinion upon the propriety of giving up the persons alluded to the Attorney General should be requested explicitly to state whether if a similar outrage had been committed in this Province the offender or offenders would be liable to undergo any of the punishments in the act passed last Session.

"(Signed) JOHN STRACHAN, P.C." (Can. Arch., State J, p. 137.)

6. At an Executive Council for Upper Canada held at York, Tuesday, September 17, 1833, under the presidency of the Rev. Dr. Strachan, the following proceedings were had:

"The Council assembled agreeably to the desire of His Excellency the Lieutenant Governor to take into consideration the requisition of his Excellency the Governor of Michigan.

"Read the following letter.

"'ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE "'14th September, 1833

"'Sir

"'To the question which the Executive Council have done me the honor to submit to me in relation to the requisition from the Governor of Michigan dated 12th August, 1833, whether if a similar outrage had been committed in this Province the offender would be liable to undergo any of the punishments stated in the Act (3 Wm 4, Cap 7) passed at the last Session I have the honor to answer that a forcible rescue from the custody of the Sheriff of this Province attended with the aggravated circumstances detailed in the affidavit of John M. Wilson and Alexander McArthur accompanying the requisition would undoubtedly subject the offender and those actively aiding and abetting him to the gravest punishment in the act, death alone excepted.

"'I have the honor to be, Sir, &c., "'(Signed) ROBERT S JAMESON, "'Attorney General.

"'To John Beikie, Esquire, "'Clerk, Executive Council,'"

"'The Council took the same into consideration and were pleased to make the following minute thereon.

"'The Council having had under consideration the requisition of His Excellency the Governor of Michigan together with the various papers relative thereto beg leave respectfully to state that as the question involves matters of great importance in our relations with a neighbouring state it would be satisfactory to them if the opinion of the Judges were obtained for their information,'" (Can. Arch., State J. p. 148.)

7. At an Executive Council for Upper Canada held at York, September 27, 1833, under the presidency of Peter Robinson, the following proceedings were had:

"Resumed the consideration of His Excellency G.B. Porter, Esquire, Governor of Michigan's Letter of the 12th Ultimo which was read in Council on the 27th and again on the 12th and 17th Instant.

"Read also the Attorney General's opinion of the 20th Instant and the Judges' Report of this date as follows:

"'ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE "'20th September, 1833 "'Sir

"'To the question which the Executive Council have done me the Honor to submit to me in relation to the requisition from the Governor of Michigan dated 12th August, 1833, whether if a similar outrage had been committed in this Province, the offender or offenders would be liable to undergo any of the punishments stated in the Act (3 Wm. 4 c. 7) passed last Session: my opinion is that a forcible rescue from the custody of the sheriff in this Province attended with the aggravated circumstances detailed in the Affidavits of John M. Wilson and Alexander MacArthur though by the law of England it would subject the offender and those actively aiding and abetting him to severe corporal punishment, by the law of the Province as it now stands could not be visited by a graver punishment than fine and imprisonment which is not one of those enumerated in the act.

"'I have the Honor to be, Sir, &c., "'(Signed) ROBERT S. JAMESON, "'Attorney General.

"'To "'John Beikie, Esq., "'Clerk, Executive Council.'

"'JUDGES' REPORT.

"'York, 27th September, 1833.

"'May it please Your Excellency

"'We have the Honor to report to Your Excellency that we have deliberated upon the reference made to us by Your Excellency's Command on the 17th September Instant in respect to an application addressed to Your Excellency by the Government of the Territory of Michigan requesting that certain persons now inhabiting this Province may be apprehended and sent to that country to answer to a charge preferred against them for assaulting and beating the Sheriff of the County of Wayne and rescuing a prisoner from his custody. We observe that the recent act of the Legislature of this Province intituled "An Act to provide for the apprehending of fugitive offenders from foreign countries and delivering them up to Justice" (a copy of which we annex to this report) gives a discretion to the Governor and Council in carrying into effect its provisions declaring in express terms that it shall not be incumbent upon them to deliver up any person charged if for any reason they shall deem is inexpedient so to do." We take it for granted however notwithstanding the general terms in which the reference is made to us, that we are not expected to express our opinion upon what would or would not be a proper exercise of this discretion. It does not, indeed, occur to us than any question of political expediency is presented by the case and if any were, we should abstain from offering an opinion upon it.

"'It is to the legal considerations connected with the case that we have confined ourselves; and in this view of it we beg respectfully to state that these prisoners having been once already apprehended and in custody in this Province upon this same charge and liberated by the decision of the Governor and Council after a consideration of the case upon an application made by the Government of Michigan, we should not think fit that the Governor and Council should authorize a second apprehension of the parties and exercise a second time the power and discretion given by the Act—This course we think could not be approved of unless, in the case of some atrocious offender, new and strong evidence should be discovered which it was not in the power of the foreign Government to produce upon a previous application and for the want of which the prisoners were upon such first application discharged, or perhaps in a case where some official or legal formality had by mere accident been overlooked on the first occasion.

"'Independently of the consideration that this case has been already acted upon by the Government, the documents before us place it in this light: the prisoners with the exception of Blackburn and his wife are charged with assaulting and beating the sheriff of Wayne and rescuing a prisoner from his custody, Blackburn being the prisoner alluded to is charged with joining in the riot and battery of the Sheriff and with unlawfully rescuing himself—The wife of Blackburn we cannot find to be sufficiently charged with any offence known to our laws which do not acknowledge a state of slavery; for the imputation of conspiring with the rioters and contriving the rescue is supported by no evidence and seems to rest on conjecture—The prisoner Blackburn it appears from the Documents before us was not committed for felony nor for any crime nor imprisoned for any cause which by our laws could be recognized as a justification of imprisonment. We mention this not from any doubt that the prisoner was in legal custody according to the laws of Michigan but because the rescue of a prisoner constitutes by our law a greater or less offence according to the degree of the crime for which he was committed and this prisoner being committed for no crime and certainly not for any felony his rescue would according to our law be a misdemeanor only and a misdemeanor of that kind that the persons convicted of it would be punished by fine and imprisonment or either of them and not by any other description of punishment—The Statute referred to provides in explicit terms that the persons subject to be delivered up under it to the justice of a foreign country are those only who shall be charged "with murder, forgery, larceny or other crime committed without the jurisdiction of this Province which crimes if committed within this Province would by the laws thereof be punishable by death corporal punishment by pillory or whipping or by confinement at hard labour." We are not aware whether the laws of the Territory of Michigan do or do not authorize the giving up of offenders charged with crimes not embraced in the above very comprehensive description; but however that may be, it is evident that the conduct of this and of other Governments in respect to the delivery up of offenders can be no further reciprocal towards each other than the laws of each will allow. We express no opinion except in reference to the statute recently passed here for regulating this particular matter—We consider the Legislature to have declared in that Statute their will in what cases fugitives from foreign countries should be surrendered; and we have therefore considered whether the persons in question as they are not charged with murder forgery or larceny could upon the facts before us be convicted of any other offence punishable at hard labour—We apprehend they could not be but that the offence of which they might be convicted would be punishable by fine and imprisonment merely without adding "hard labour" to the sentence. Riot, a Battery of the Sheriff in the execution of his duty, and the rescue of a person legally in his custody but not charged with felony or other crime are the offences with which upon the statements before us they are liable to be charged:—and all these are offences which in the known and ordinary administration of the law in this Province would be punished in no other manner than by fine and mere imprisonment. Instances we doubt not may be brought from distant times, in which one or other of the above offences has been punished in England by Pillory or whipping or by other unusual or disgraceful punishments and we do not say that these cases altho' they may be old are so decidedly void of all authority that a judgment which should now be passed in conformity to them would certainly be held to be erroneous and bad. But we conceive that in England such punishments have long ceased to be assigned to the offences in question; that in this Province they have never been assigned to them and that recent Statutes which have been passed in England tend strongly to show that Parliament did not regard them as punishments which in later times could be properly attached to such offences without express Legislative sanction. We observe that there is evidence of one of the persons charged having pointed a loaded pistol at the Sheriff. If it had been further stated that he had pulled the trigger or otherwise attempted to discharge the pistol the act would have been one which in England is felony, having been first made so by Lord Ellenborough's Act passed in 1803; but that Act does not extend to this Province and was never adopted or in force here and if it were otherwise, still this case upon the facts stated is not within it. Looking upon the act of pointing or presenting the pistol as one for which all the rioters were equally responsible it forms an aggravation of their riot and assault but it does not change the legal character of their crime it would probably lead to a higher fine or a longer imprisonment but not to a punishment of another kind. The riot as it is described was an outrageous one and the battery of the sheriff appears to have been violent and cruel—the direct object and intent however seems to have been the rescue of the Prisoner rather than to take the life of the sheriff; and even supposing the facts would well support a conviction for an assault on the Sheriff with an intent to murder him still by our law such intent would be merely an aggravation of the riot and assault; it would not alter the technical character of the crime or the description of punishment however much it might enhance the fine or lead to increasing the term of Imprisonment.

"'The conclusion therefore which we have come to is that these parties are not charged with any of the offences enumerated in the statute annexed and consequently that the Lieutenant Governor and council are not authorized by its provisions to send them out of the Province. It has not escaped our attention as a peculiar feature in this case that two of the persons whom the Government of this Province is requested to deliver up are persons recognized by the Government of Michigan as slaves and that it appears upon these documents that if they should be delivered up they would by the laws of the United States be exposed to be forced into a state of Slavery from which they had escaped two years ago when they fled from Kentucky to Detroit; that if they should be sent to Michigan and upon trial be convicted of the Riot and punished they would after undergoing their punishment be subject to be taken by their masters and continued in a state of Slavery for life, and that on the other hand if they should never be prosecuted or if they should be tried and acquitted this consequence would equally follow. Among the Documents before us we perceive there are papers which have been delivered to the Government in behalf of the alleged rioters in which this inevitable consequence is urged as a reason against their being sent back to Michigan and in which it is intimated that to place the slaves again within the power of their masters is the principal object and that the Government of Michigan in making application for them is rather influenced by the interest and wishes of the slave owners than by any desire to bring the parties to trial for the alleged riot. No consideration of this kind has had any weight with us, for in the first place as regards the insinuation against the motives of the Government of Michigan if we had any thing to do with them we should consider (as no doubt this Government would consider in any similar case) that courtesy towards the Government of a foreign country requires always to assume that it has no motive or design on these occasions which is not just and fair and in short none but such as is openly avowed. And in the next place as to the consequence spoken of—If it would follow in course from the laws of the United States it is not probable that the Executive Government there would prevent the slave masters from asserting their rights under those laws and it is therefore reasonable to suppose that the consequence may really follow which the parties concerned have represented. Still if in this case the black people whose arrest is applied for had been shown to have fled from a charge for any such offence as would clearly come within our Statute, we do not conceive that we could on that account have advised a course to be pursued in regard to them different from that which should be pursued with respect to free white persons under the same circumstances. When we say this we should desire it to be understood that we are so clearly of opinion on the other hand, that the withdrawing from a state of Slavery in a foreign Country could not here be treated as an offence with reference to our statute already alluded to so that any person could be surrendered up under that statute upon such a ground merely. We beg leave to express to Your Excellency our regret for the delay that has occurred in answering the reference which Your Excellency and the Honorable the Executive Council have thought fit to make to us. Among other causes which have led to it was a doubt at first entertained among us whether we could properly give an opinion upon a matter which under possible circumstances might give rise to a judicial proceeding in which the same question would come before us or some one of us for decision. An examination of this subject has removed this doubt and we now submit our opinion to Your Excellency with such explanations as seemed to us to be material.

"'We have the Honor to be "'Your Excellency's Most obedient "and humble Servants "'(Signed) "'JOHN B. ROBINSON, C. J. "'L. P. SHERWOOD—J. "'J. B. MACAULEY—J.'"

"Upon which the council were pleased to make the following Report.

"'To His Excellency, Sir John Colborne, K.C.B., Lieutenant Governor of the Province of Upper Canada and Major General Commanding His Majesty's Forces therein—&c——&c &c

"'May it please Your Excellency

"'The Council have had under consideration the papers relating to the requisition of the acting Governor of Michigan, together with evidence furnished by His Excellency the Governor of that Territory accompanied by a further requisition for the delivery of the fugitives—they have also had before them the opinions of the three Judges and of the Attorney General with which they concur and have been led to the conclusion that the fugitive Slaves named in the requisitions are not charged with an offence which would have rendered them liable to any of the punishments enumerated in the Provincial Statute and consequently that the Lieutenant Governor and Council are not authorized by its provisions to send them out of the Province.'" (Can. Arch., State J, p. 155.)

8. At an Executive Council for Upper Canada held at Toronto, Saturday, September 9, 1837, under the presidency of the Honourable William Allen, the following proceedings were had:

"Read the Attorney General's Report of the 8th instant on Documents for the surrender of Jesse Happy, a fugitive from Justice in the United States charged with horse stealing—upon which the Council made the following Report

"'The Council have taken into serious consideration the Documents with the Reports of the Attorney General

"'A similar application referred for the Report of the Council on the 7th Instant—In that case as in the present it was suggested that the fugitive was a slave, and that the real object of the application was not so much to bring him to trial for the alleged Felony as to reduce him again to a state of Slavery—In that case however it appeared that the Offence had been recently committed viz: in May last—That an early occasion, probably the first, was taken to have him indicted—that process for his apprehension immediately issued and that shortly after the return of the Sheriff to that process the requisition from His Excellency the Governor of the State of Kentucky was obtained and promptly brought to this Province. Under these circumstances the Council were of opinion that in the exercise of a sound discretion they were called upon to recommend to Your Excellency to comply with the requisition—The facts appearing upon the Official Documents in this case are widely different—The Alleged Offence purports to have been committed more than four years ago. When the Indictment was preferred is not shown (as it was in the former case) but the earliest date which shows its existence is 1st June 1835 when the certificate of the Clerk of the Court is given. No process seems to have been issued in the State of Kentucky nor is any other step shown to have been taken until the middle of last month. There also it is suggested that the fugitive is a slave that the real object of his apprehension is to give him up to his former owners and so to deprive him of that personal liberty which the laws of this country secure him. If this be conceded in the present instance after a lapse of four years, no argument could be consistently urged against the delivery up (on the usual application) of persons who have been still longer resident in this Province.

"'The delivery of a Slave under these circumstances to the authorities claiming him would it is clear subject him to a double penalty, the one of punishment for a crime, the other of a return to a state of Slavery, even if he should be acquitted. The former in strict accordance with our Statute, the other in direct opposition to the genius of our institutions and the spirit of our Laws. For this cause the Council feel great difficulty in the course which they would advise Your Excellency to adopt, were there any law by which, after taking his trial and if convicted undergoing his sentence he would be restored to a state of freedom, the Council would not hesitate to advise his being given up but there is no such provision in the Statute.

"'On the other hand the Council feel that it cannot be permitted that because a man may happen to be a fugitive slave he should escape those consequences of crime committed in a foreign country to which a free man would be amenable. This would be equally contrary to the Law and to the spirit of mutual justice which gave origin to it, in this Province as well as in the United States. Considering however the circumstances of this case and also the difficulty that might arise from it as a precedent the Council respectfully recommend that time should be given to the accused to furnish affidavits of the facts set forth in the Petition presented on his behalf in order to a full understanding of the whole matter.

"'The Council would further respectfully submit to Your Excellency the propriety of drawing the attention of Her Majesty's Government to this question with a view of ascertaining their views upon it as a matter of general policy.'" (Can. Arch., State J, p. 597.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For these documents Mr. Justice Riddell is indebted to Mr. William Smith of the Department of Archives, Ottawa, Canada.



ADDITIONAL LETTERS OF NEGRO MIGRANTS OF 1916-1918[1]

LETTERS STATING THAT WAGES RECEIVED ARE NOT SATISFACTORY

BROOKHAVEN, MISS., April 24, 1917.

Gents: The cane growers of Louisiana have stopped the exodus from New Orleans, claiming shortage of labor which will result in a sugar famine.

Now these laborers thus employed receive only 85 cents a day and the high cost of living makes it a serious question to live.

There is a great many race people around here who desires to come north but have waited rather late to avoid car fare, which they have not got. isnt there some way to get the concerns who wants labor, to send passes here or elsewhere so they can come even if they have to pay out of the first months wages? Please dont publish this letter but do what you can towards helping them to get away. If the R. R. Co. would run a low rate excursion they could leave that way. Please ans.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA., April 4, 1917.

Dear Sir: I have been taking defender for sevel months and I have seen that there is lots good work in that section and I want to say as you are the editor of that paper I wish that you would let me know if there is any wheare up there that I can get in with an intucion that I may get my wife and my silf from down hear and can bring just as miney more as he want we are suffing hear all the work is giveing to poor white peples and we can not get anything to doe at all I will go to pennsylvania or n y state or N J or Ill. or any wheare that I can surport my wife I am past master of son of light in Mass. large Royal arch and is in good standing all so the good Sancer large no. 18. I need helpe my wife cant get any thing to due eather can I so please if you can see any body up there that want hands let me no at once I can get all they need and it will alow me to get my wife away from down hear so please remember and ans. I will apreshate it.

Looking for ans at once. Please let me no some thing thease crackers is birds in south

NASHVILLE, TENN., April 22, 1917.

Sir: I am in Nashville and I have a job but is not satisfied with the money that I am getting for my work and I ask of you to please give me a good job working any place I am a expirence fire man and all so some expirence in engineer and please answer soon and let me know what you can find for me to do.

ALEXANDRIA, LA., June 6, 1917.

Dear Sirs: I am writeing to you all asking a favor of you all. I am a girl of seventeen. School has just closed I have been going to school for nine months and I now feel like I aught to go to work. And I would like very very well for you all to please forward me to a good job. but there isnt a thing here for me to do, the wages here is from a dollar and a half a week. What could I earn Nothing. I have a mother and father my father do all he can for me but it is so hard. A child with any respect about her self or his self wouldnt like to see there mother and father work so hard and earn nothing I feel it my duty to help. I would like for you all to get me a good job and as I havent any money to come on please send me a pass and I would work and pay every cent of it back and get me a good quite place to stay. My father have been getting the defender for three or four months but for the last two weeks we have failed to get it. I dont know why. I am tired of down hear in this —— / I am afraid to say. Father seem to care and then again dont seem to but Mother and I am tired tired of all of this I wrote to you all because I believe you will help I need your help hopeing to here from you all very soon.

ATLANTA, GA., April 29, 1917.

SIR: I am a young man 25 years of age. I desire to get in some place where I can earn more for my labor than I do now, which is $1.25 per day. I do not master no trade but I have finished a correspondence course with the practical auto school of New York City and with a little experience I would make a competent automobile man, but I do not ask for your assistance on this line of business only. I am willing to do anything for better wages.

P.S. I would like if you knows if there is an auto school any where where colored men can go to and learn the automobile industry to give me their address.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA., April 30, 1917.

Kind sir: In reading the Chicago Defender I saw where laborers are wanted and of course not knowing whether you would send transportation this far or not I would like a good job in the north where I can earn more for my labor and would like for you to help me out if you would. I am now working at the Clyde Line and they are cutting off help every day of course I dont know about this moulding work but am very quick to learn any thing most any kind of work for a laboring man, dont play on the job. all I ask of you is a trial, willing and ready to go to work any time I hear from you. Please ans soon. willing to Detroit Michigan or any part of the north.

Sirs: I am writing to find out if there is any way that you could find me a job. I would be very glad for you to do so and I will see that you wont loose nothing if I can get the job. work no good here for a black man. And I want to leave this place. But I cannot make the money to leave on and I hope you will do all you can in the way of helping me to secure a job and I hope you will let me here from you in short.

WILMINGTON, N. C., May 4, 1917.

Dear Sir: Wright a fiew words for work i ask to hand this editor to read we are work mens wont to work but wages is so little we cant get out we wont to leave the south and work. Pleas wright let me know 10 mens able body men will stick to work we well come.

DALLAS, TEX., April 30, 1917.

Dear Sir: I read your advertisement in the Chicago Defender and having been unable to find work here I want a chance of this kind also a friend of mine, we are both willing to work. Tell me how soon you can send and how many you are willing to send for.

AUGUSTA, GA., 5-28-17.

Gentlemens: In reading the defender the paper of our race the numerous wanted of labor in your state I would like make some of the good pay for God knows we need it in Augusta. Gentlemens I made very effort to come out in Illinois or some other place where I can live deason. I have payed as much as too dollars & that I cant get away from here, we can scarcely live in Augusta not say anything about debt. I wish you gentlemens would asist me in getting away from here not only my self but some friends or send an agent threw here I mean agent not some so call agent—or if you gentlemens see I get a transportation I am real in what I am saying any kind that a living in. I am twenty years exspierince in yellow pine lumber willing to do any thing else that pays gentlemens answer at once. I like to come now to get settled by winter.

PENSACOLA, FLA., April 23, 1917.

Dear Sir: I saw your advice in the Chicago Defender I thought to wright for farther in fennashion I would be glad to now how I can get ther I am a laborn man want to get where work is plentiful & good wedges i want to get in a Christian nise place i have a good family and car for them I want to come up there to see the place & then latter on send for family can u send for me or describe me to some one who will send for me.

ST. LOUIS, April 28, 1917.

Dear Gentlemens: I have been advise through the columns of the Chicago Defender to get in connection with you as they claim that you are in position to look after colored labor and help I am anxious to get a study position in some small villiage or town near Chicago. I am from Alabama and dont believe in loafing I am now employed at a firm as porter, packer, asst. shipping clerk but I cant live on the pay. I am to go to Detroit next Saturday but if I can hear from you I would rother take your advise. Please let me hear from you. I was intending to go by Chicago and call on you but I thought it wise to write because here in St. Louis they dont like to see a man idle.

Dear sir: I am a reader of the Chicago Defender and enjoy it very much. I saw in todays defender where labor was wanter transportation advanced from Chicago. Now I have a good steady position where I have been working for three years with the American Sugar refinery but I would like to make a change I know that I can better my condition where I work it 12 hours. Therefore I would welcome the 8 hours with pleasure. Please send me full information. I would like to get a transportation for my self and son 16 years of age. I will enclose self address envelope for a reply at once.

NEW ORLEANS, LA., 4/30/17.

Sir: In reading the Chicago paper we find advertisement asking for labor men. I am a man of family and would like very much to come to this kind of job but having a wife and five children to support couldnt very well leave on a railroad pass as I hate to leave my family behind without support for at one dollar and seventy five cents per day I couldnt do very much in a short while. Now will you please inform me of this transportation that is advertised. I am a colored man weighs about 160 pounds and forty nine years old. Please write me full particulars at this address.

COLLINS, MISS., April 7, 1917.

Dear Sir: I saw where you needed labor and I am a hard working man but I cant make above a living here and hardly that and so if you can assist me your kindness will never be forgotten. I shall look to hear from you by return mail.

GREENVILLE, S. C., April 29, 1917.

Dear Sir: I would like for you to write me and tell me how is time up there and jobs is to get. I would like for you to get me a job and my wife. She is a no. 1 good cook, maid, nurse job I am a fireing boiler, steame fitter and experiences mechencs helpe and will do laboring work if you can not get me one off those jobs above that i can do. I have work in a foundry as a molder helper and has lots of experense at that. I am 27 yrs of age. If you can get me job I would like for you to do so please and let me no and will pay for trouble. looking to hear from you wright away please if you new off any firm that needs a man give them my address please I wont to get out of the south where I can demand something for my work. I will close.

LUTCHER, LA., May 13, 1917.

Dear Sir: I have been reading the Chicago defender and seeing so many advertisements about the work in the north I thought to write you concerning my condition. I am working hard in the south and can hardly earn a living. I have a wife and one child and can hardly feed them. I thought to write and ask you for some information concerning how to get a pass for myself and family. I dont want to leave my family behind as I cant hardly make a living for them right here with them and I know they would fare hard if I would leave them. If there are any agents in the south there havent been any of them to Lutcher if they would come here they would get at least fifty men. Please sir let me hear from you as quick as possible. Now this is all. Please dont publish my letter, I was out in town today talking to some of the men and they say if they could get passes that 30 or 40 of them would come. But they havent got the money and they dont know how to come. But they are good strong and able working men. If you will instruct me I will instruct the other men how to come as they all want to work. Please dont publish this because we have to whisper this around among our selves because the white folks are angry now because the negroes are going north.

WINSTON, N. C., May 17, 1917.

Dear Friend: a little information i am asking concerning work i am a stranger to you and you is one to me but i saw your optunity to the colorred people of the south as i am a reader of the Defender and all so the new York age to i seen Sunday that you is wanting labers i wants to come up there i am working eavery day but wedges is cheap don her i am a firman and cannot make a living hardly and am married man too. if you can secure me a job and send me past for me and a nother friend he is married no children i would like to lern how to do molding as the colorred man is bared of from that kind of work in the south.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA., May 18, 1917.

Sir: this is John ——. will you please get me a job as I have had bad luck an it left me in pour shape I am a molder and machinists but I will work as helpe a while jest I an wife sen transpertation for two I an wife.

JACKSONVILLE, FLA., May 5, 1917.

Dear Sir: Kindly inform me by return mail are there any factories or concerns employing colored laborers, skilled or unskilled, the south is ringing with news from Chicago telling of the wonderful openings for colored people, and I am asking you to find the correct information whether I could get employment there or not. Please find postage enclosed for immediate reply.

CHARLESTON, S. C., April 29, 1917.

Dear Sir: I saw your add in the Chicago Defender where you wanted laborers and I taught that this would be a grand oppotunity for me to better my present conditions so I taught I would write you and ask you would you be kind enough as to give me a job dear sir. I am a single man and would be willing to do any kind of work, dear sir would you be kind enough as to forward me a transportation and I would come write away so please do the best you can for me. There is but little down here to be gotten dear sir will you kindly grant me that favor. Hopeing to receive a favorable answer.

GREENWOOD, S. C., May 8, 1917.

Dear Friend: I saw in the Chicago Defender where you waned labor. pleas send pass for as many men as you can are let me know what I must do to get one by return mail because I wont to leave the south and go north where you get a better chance. So please answer at once.

SUMTER, S. C., May 12, 1917.

Dear Sir: Could you get me a job in the —— Tin Plate Factory at ——, Pa. a job for (3) three also a pass from here for (3) I am a comon laborer and the other are the same. If you could we will be ever so much ablige and will comply with your advertisement. If you cant get a job just where we wish to go we will thank you for a good job any where in the state of Pa. or Ohio. I am in my 50 the others are my sons just in the bloom of life and I would wish that you could find a place where we can make a living and I also wish that you could find a place where we all three can be together. If you will send us a pass we will come just as soon as I receive it. If you find a place that you can send us please let us hear what the job will pay. Nothing more. I am yours respectfully.

CARRIER, MISS., May, 1917.

Please sir will you please send me transportation for me and my wife I am willing to work anywhere you put me at the rate I am going it would take me from now until Cristmas to feed myself and get money enough to come with. Wages is so low and grocery is so high untill all I can do is to live. Please answer soon to.

NEWBERN, ALA., 5-21-1917.

My dear Sir: Your letter of the 11th inst. to hand and contents noted. In reply I wish to thank you for the kind offer relative to the laides. We shall leave for New York on or before June 20th; I desire to know if it be possible to secure our transportation fare from the parties to whom they shall work? Owing to conditions (here) in the south one is hardly able to eke out an existence on the paltry salaries allowed by our white friends; therefore we need help. If you can comply with our request, we shall be very grateful to you; & I wish to say in advance that you will not have cause to regret for whatever the charges may be we shall pay them willingly. I shall furnish the best references as to character.

Now, if it be possible for us to secure our transportation, we could leave here on or before the 5th of June. We prefer coming by water as it is cheaper. I trust that I have made myself plain and that you will see your way clear to serve us.

NEWBERN, ALA., 4/7/1917.

Dear Sir: I am in receipt of a letter from —— of ——, ——, in regards to placing two young women of our community in positions in the North or West, as he was unable to give the above assistance he enclosed your address. We desire to know if you are in a position to put us in touch with any reliable firm or private family that desire to employ two young women; one is a teacher in the public school of this county, and has been for the past six years having duties of a mother and sister to care for she is forced to seek employment else where as labor is very cheap here. The other is a high school pupil, is capable of during the work of a private family with much credit.

Doubtless you have learned of the great exodus of our people to the north and west from this and other southern states. I wish to say that we are forced to go when one things of a grown man wages is only fifty to seventy five cents per day for all grades of work. He is compelled to go where there is better wages and sociable conditions, believe me. When I say that many places here in this state the only thing that the black man gets is a peck of meal and from three to four lbs. of bacon per week, and he is treated as a slave. As leaders we are powerless for we dare not resent such or to show even the slightest disapproval. Only a few days ago more than 1000 people left here for the north and west. They cannot stay here. The white man is saying that you must not go but they are not doing anything by way of assisting the black man to stay. As a minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church (north) I am on the verge of starvation simply because of the above conditions. I shall be glad to know if there is any possible way by which I could be of real service to you as director of your society. Thanking you in advance for an early reply, and for any suggestions that you may be able to offer.

With best wishes for your success, I remain, very sincerely yours.

BREWSTER, ALA., Jan. 6, 1917.

Dear Sir: I am writing you enregards if work in the north I would like to came in turch with some of the leading men that wants colerd laborer and what about transportation there is a good deal of peple here wanting jobs.

TROY, ALA., 3-24-17.

Dear Sir: I received you of Feb. 17 and was very delighted to hear from you in regards of the matter in which I writen you about. I am very anxious to get to Chicago and realy believe that if I was there I would very soom be working on the position in which I writen you about. Now you can just imagine how it is with the colored man in the south. I am more than anxious to go to Chicago but have not got the necessary fund in which to pay my way and these southern white peoples are not paying a man enough for his work down here to save up enough money to leave here with. Now I am asking you for a helping hand in which to assist me in getting to Chicago. I know you can do so if you only will.

Hoping to hear from you at an early date and looking for a helping hand and also any information you choose to inform me of,

I remain as ever yours truly.

COLUMBIA, S. C., Dec. 1, 1917.

Dear Ser: I am out of work and was inform to write you all about work in the north I am a labor and is willing to work any where. I am in need of work very bad let me here from you at once.

CHARLESTON, S. C., April 27, 1917.

Dear Sir: i was told by Mr. —— —— to rite you for one of cards as he say you got a lot of work to do in a brick yard and i am a hard working man i want to work and will work at any thing that pays so i rite to you for one of your blank so i can fill it out i dont care how soon i can get there and go to work there is no work here that pays a man to stay here so please send blank as soon as you can. Hoping to here from you soon.

SAVANNAH, GA., April 29, 1917.

Dear sir: I receive your letter and glad to hear from you, the reason why i wanted to come up there is for more wages, i am a man with family and works hard, but dont get sufficient wages to support my family. i does any kind of ordinary hard work such as farming or teamster or most anything, i would like to no what kind of work you got up there to do as i fell satisfied that i could please you, and also state your price that you pay, and if this application is satisfactory why ans and i am willing to come right way.

Dear Sir: After reading a very interesting letter of Miss—, it affords me great interest to ask you for some information in regards to employment in Connecticut and to eliminate some writing and get the right understanding. I will ask you to please furnish me with an application form and in the mean time I may receive all information that you may give. Also please if you cannot get me employment in Connecticut, write me if there are any openings in New Jersey or New York. I am very anxious to leave the south as there are no chances of jobs here worth while. I have a recommendation as machine helper which I can send if required.