¾

¾

¾

The Military Called Out.

. . . . . .

We learn of from Boston papers of Thursday evening, and from other sources, the particulars of another disgraceful outrage, perpetrated upon the soil of Massachusetts, by the minions of the slave power. . . .

The particulars of the arrest, and subsequent proceedings, so far as they have transpired, are given below:

A colored man, named Anthony Burns, who is said to have made his escape from Richmond, Va., last March, and came to Boston, where he has been at work, in the employ of Coffin Pitts, a colored dealer in clothing, was returning peaceably to his home, on Wednesday evening, at about eight o’clock, when he was arrested by officers Coolidge, Riley, and Laighton, acting under the orders of Watson Freeman, U.S. Marshal, and by virtue of a warrant issued by U.S. Commissioner Edward G. Loring.

The prisoner submitted to his arrest without any resistance, and was forthwith escorted to quarters in the Court House, where he was put under a strong guard of officers for the night. The arrest was so quietly and speedily performed that but very few persons, except the officers drafted in readiness for the occasion, were aware of the proceedings, and thus there was no excitement created.

On Thursday morning, the prisoner was arraigned before Commissioner Loring, in the U.S. Court Room, upon a complaint alleging that he "owed service and labor" to Colonel Charles F. Suttle, a merchant of Alexandria, Va., having clandestinely escaped therefrom on the 24^th of March last, when he left Virginia for Massachusetts.

Messrs. Seth J. Thomas and Edward G. Parker appeared as counsel for the claimant and Messrs. Richard H. Dana, Jr., and Chas M. Ellis volunteered for the prisoner. Sundry legal papers, tending to establish the claim, were exhibited to the Court, and in addition, William Breut, a merchant of Richmond, testified to the ownership of Colonel Suttle, and identified the prisoner as the human "chattel."

Mr. R. H. Dana, Jr., moved a postponement, on the ground that the prisoner was not prepared to make his defence.

Mr. Parker opposed a postponement, on the ground that the claimant was here from a distance. The slave, he said, was willing to go back.

Mr. Dana said the counsel misunderstood him. The defendant, from the novelty of his situation and from other causes, was not in a condition to decide whether he wanted to make a defence. Having been put forward as counsel to act for the person, he felt it to be his duty to urge that an opportunity should be given to the prisoner to speak and decide for himself.

. . . . .

The Commissioner then addressed the prisoner, who seemed somewhat frightened at his position, and informed him that it was his right to have all the allegations made against him, proved by the clearest testimony; that he had also the right to have counsel and friends, and that if he desired a postponement he should accord it to him.

The prisoner seemed in great doubt what to say: He glanced around the court room, apparently in search of some one. After a few moments delay, he, in a low voice, asked to have the case postponed.