our of them, met her for several months at
the same church; and one witness, who had long been in her society, and
in close association with her, knew she had a mark upon her forehead
corresponding to the one she bore on her own. And by dint of all these
matters, this long continued acquaintance only reviving the impressions
received in early life, they had no doubt of the identity of the person.
Was there ever a more perfect train of evidence exhibited to prove the
identity of a person, than on the present occasion?

* * * * *

We have called witnesses on this point alone, and have more than
counterpoised the evidence produced upon the opposite side. And we have
not only made it manifest that she was a free woman, but we have
confirmed her charter by separate proof. What does the gentleman say
further? Do I understand him to say we have no right to determine this
matter judicially? Now what is all this about? Why is it before you,
taking your time day after day? According to this argument, you have
nothing to do but to give the master the flesh he claims. But you are to
be satisfied that you have sufficient reason to believe that these
claims are well founded. And if you leave that matter in a state of
doubt, it does not require a single witness to be called on the part of
the respondent, to prove on the opposite side of the question. But we
have come in with a weight of evidence demolishing the structure he has
raised, restoring the woman to her original position in the estimation
of the law. "Well," says the gentleman, "it is like the case of a
fugitive from justice." But it is not, and if it were, it would not
benefit his case. The case of a fugitive from justice is one in which
the prisoner is remanded to the custody of the law, handed over for
legal purposes. The case of a fugitive from labor is a case in which the
individual is handed over sometimes to a merciless master, and very
rarely to a charitable one. Does the counsel mean to say that in the
case of a fugitive from justice he is not bound to satisfy the judge
before whom, the question is heard? He should prove our witnesses
unworthy of belief. As Judge Grier said, upon a former occasion, "You
can choose your own time; you have full and abundant opportunities on
every side to prepare against any contingency." Why don't they do so? He
is not to come here and force on a case, and say, I suppose you take
every thing for gran