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 b