The Cleveland Daily Herald

Cleveland, May 5, 1859

 

 

The Rescue Cases.

 

 

      On yesterday, Wednesday, Jennings and Mitchell ventured into the street. Mitchell says he has concluded that our streets are perfectly safe. It has taken twenty days, of close confinement, for him to realize the difference between Kentucky and Ohio. As soon as these me were satisfied their persons were in no danger, they very wisely concluded to meet the indictments in Lorain County, by giving bail for their appearance. We understand they intend to do so.

      Another plan is, to deliver themselves up to the Sheriff of Lorain County, and then ask Judge Willson for a writ of Habeas Corpus. – The decision of our Supreme Court has, however, rendered that plan one of doubtful expediency, as the U.S. Court probably would say that before verdict, at least, it would not interfere with the State Courts.

      By our report of proceedings of to-day, Thursday, it will be seen that Bushnell’s Counsel ask for his immediate sentence, on the ground that he has been in jail twenty days, and that the intention is to apply to the State Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas Corpus, to release him from such confinement. The Court said sentence should be pronounced on Bushnell as soon as the case of Langston now on trial, is disposed of.

      We notice that the Supreme Court of Ohio has adjourned until November. Of course, when application for the writ shall be made, the fall bench of Judges can, if the see fit, act in concert in Chambers, as well as if in regular term time. The law so provides. We sincerely trust that in a matter of such deep moment, no one Judge will act alone, but that the full Bench will be consulted.

 

 

Rescue Case – Trial of Langston.

TENTH DAY – MORNING SESSION.

 

 

      On the opening of Court, Judge Spalding stated to the Court that it was well know that an application to the Supreme Court of Ohio for the writ of Habeas Corpus, to enquire into the legality of holding the defendants in these cases, was denied by that court because none of said defendants had been sentenced. Judge Spalding would therefore move the Court as follows:

United States          Indictment for

vs.      Rescuing Fugitives from

Simeon Bushnell, Service.

      And now after verdict of guilty by the Jury, and after being committed to prison for the space of twenty days, comes the said Simeon Bushnell, by Spalding, Riddle, Backus & Griswold, his attorneys, and moves the Court to pronounce the sentence of the law upon him, the said convict, without further delay. And as special cause why said sentence should be thus pronounced, the Court is here informed and given to understand that the said Simeon Bushnell desires to make application to the Supreme Court of the State of Ohio for the writ of Habeas Corpus, in behalf of him the said Bushnell, that he may thereby be restored to his liberty.

Spalding, Riddle, Backus & Griswold,

Attorneys of Simeon Bushnell.

      The court stated that the present case against Langston will probably be soon disposed of, when sentence shall be pronounced in the Bushnell case. The Court stated that the case now on trial, as is well known, had been interrupted once by the former application, and the Court, while not wishing to delay the sentence, still desires to avoid any further interruption in this case, but as soon as this case is finished, the wishes of defendant shall be complied with.

      The trial then proceeded in the Langston’s case.

      Mr. Bennett was on the stand. – The witness was in the tavern three or four times; the first time between 3 and 4 o’clock; saw the warrant before going into the room where the negro was; then went into the room and Jennings showed witness the Power of Attorney; witness made not direct communication to the crowd, but talked to individuals.

      Esq. Bennett was cross-examined at length, but his testimony he gave in the other case.

      D.L. Wadsworth, sworn. – Was as Wellington on the day referred to; saw defendant Langston several times; at one time defendant was in the room adjoining where John was, talking with Lowe; saw him below once or twice; defendant was moving about, did not hear him speak during the day; at the time John was brought down witness was in front of the house.

      Wm. Houk, sworn. – Was magistrate there on the day of the rescue. (witness gave the general details of the day as in his testimony on the former case). Witness went up into the room where John was; a man met him and handed witness a paper; witness thinks he said it was a warrant; can’t tell who that man was; it was quite dark in the room and witness did not have his spectacles; told the man that the crowd below did not believe they had any papers for John and this was the first witness heard of any papers; this was within an hour of the escape of John, when witness went into the room he was asked to go up there to see the Marshal; there was nothing said about any Power of Attorney; a short time before the rescue heard Langston say that he did not want anything done illegally, but he thought the citizens generally should know that the papers were regular by which they held John at the same time a man with a gun was saying something and Langston told him to keep quiet; this was near night and Esq. Bennett and De Wolfe were present; very soon before John’s escape; about that time a person came out on a platform or something and read a paper and from a few words witness heard he thought it was a warrant; don’t know but it was Mr. Patton; the large proportion of the crowd were mere spectators, not taking part in the proceedings but merely looking on; there was no appearance of concert of action, no organization apparent, no leader.

      B. Meacham sworn. – Constable at Wellington on day of rescue; was there all day long; a little after 3 o’clock went to arrest Lowe on a warrant issued for kidnapping; saw Lowe and he said witness could not arrest him as he was a Marshal and had a warrant for John; he sowed the warrant; there was nothing said about any other paper; no other paper shown; nothing said about a power of attorney; nothing said about an agent of the owner being there; Jennings was lying on the bed, but took no part in the conversation. When Dickson at witness’ second interview, said to Lowe that the warrant had no seal, Mr. Lowe said it was not necessary; Lowe again showed his warrant as his authority for hold John; Jennings was still lying on the bed; there was nothing said by any one about Lowe’s having turned John over to Jennings; this second interview was between 4 and 5 o’clock; witness’ impression is that he went out leaving Dickson there.