ted. He is to come prepared to prove the justice of
his claim before the tribunal who is to decide upon it. That he has not
done successfully, and I would, therefore, ask your Honor, after the
elaborate argument on the part of the plaintiff, to discharge this
woman: for after such an abundance of testimony unbroken and
incontestable as that we have exhibited here, it would be a monstrous
perversion of reason to suppose that anything more could be required.

Mr. McMurtrie replied by reasserting his positions. It was a grave
question for the court to consider what evidence was required. He
thought that this decision might be the turning case to show whether the
act of Congress would be carried out or whether we were to return in
fact to the state of affairs under the old laws.

Judge Kane said, in reference to the remarks at the close of Mr.
McMurtrie's speech: So long as I retain my seat on this bench, I shall
endeavor to enforce this law without reference to my own sympathies, or
the sympathies and opinions of others. I do not think, in the cases
under this act of Congress, or a treaty, or constitutional, or legal
provision for the extradition of fugitives from justice, that it is
possible to imagine that conclusive proof of identity could be
established by depositions. From the nature of the case and the facts to
be proved, proof cannot be made in anticipation of the identity of the
party. That being established, it is the office of the judge, to
determine whether a _prima facie_ case indicates the identity of the
party charged, with the party before him.

* * * * *

On the other hand, the evidence of the claimant has been met, and
regarding the bearing of the witnesses for the respondent, met by
witnesses who testified, with apparent candor and great intelligence. If
they are believed, then the witnesses for the claimant are mistaken. The
question is, whether two witnesses for the claimant, who have not seen
the respondent for twenty-three, one for twenty-four years, are to be
believed in preference to four witnesses on the other side, three of
whom have seen her frequently since 1826, and known her as Euphemia
Williams, and the fourth, who has not seen her for a quarter of a
century, but testifies that when they were children, they used to jest
each other about scars, which they still bear upon their persons; I am
bound to say that the proof by the four witnesses has not been
ov