was the personal friend of Harrison, and knew but little of Mr. Van Buren.

In 1840 he again voted for Harrison; influenced at this time by decided antislavery sentiments.

Meantime an event which largely determined Mr. Chase's political action, happened at Cincinnati in July, 1836, and is historically known as the "Birney mob."

James G. Birney was a Southern man, a lawyer, and a slaveholder, who, in 1833, emancipated his slaves, and thenceforward devoted his life and energies to the antislavery cause. In April, 1836, he established his newspaper, the Philanthropist, at Cincinnati; but the public sentiment of the city was violently pro-slavery, as indeed was the almost universal public sentiment of the country, and his paper soon attracted attention, and became a definite object of popular hatred and complaint. On the 12th of July, at midnight, his office was entered by a mob, and his types and press were seriously damaged. Threats were made at the same time, that unless the publication of the paper was stopped, the assault would be repeated and the office destroyed. Some days later, on the 21st of July, a public meeting was held by the citizens, to consider whether they "would permit the publication or distribution of abolition papers in Cincinnati." The mayor of the city presided; and the meeting, a large one, deliberately resolved that nothing less than a complete abandonment of the publication of the paper would prevent a resort to violence. This meeting further proclaimed that they would use all the lawful means at their command to suppress any newspaper advocating the modern doctrine of abolition. A committee of thirteen was appointed to wait upon Mr. Birney and his associates, to request an abandonment of the publication of their paper; and to warn them that if they did not comply, the meeting would not be responsible for the conse quences. On the evening of the 28th this committee of citizens (which was composed of gentlemen of large wealth and commanding social position, headed by Judge Burnett, who had formerly been a United States Senator), and the executive committee of the Ohio Antislavery Society, under whose auspices the Philanthropist was published, held a conference. The antislavery committee proposed a public discussion; but the citi

zens' committee would hear of nothing less than the immediate discontinuance of the Philanthropist, and utter silence on the subject of slavery. In case of refusal to comply with this demand, they predicted "a mob unusual in numbers, determined in its purposes, and desolating in its ravages." Judge Burnett expressed it as his opinion that the mob would consist of five thousand persons, and that two-thirds of the property-holders of the city would join it. The citizens' committee was then asked whether, if the mob could be averted, they (the committee)' would be willing that the publication of the paper should go on. Several of the committee, including the chairman, promptly answered that they would not, and the antislavery committee was informed that it would be allowed until noon the next day to give a final answer touching the matter of the conference.

At noon the next day the eight members composing the antislavery executive committee announced their determination not to comply with the insolent and lawless demand made upon them.

This answer was decisive of the result which followed.

In the evening another meeting was held by the rioters, and they resolved that the types and press belonging to the Philanthropist should be thrown into the streets, and its editor notified to leave the city within twenty-four hours. With the darkness of the night, the work of destruction began; the office was entered and pillaged, the types were scattered into the streets, and the press thrown into the river. The mob sought Mr. Birney; he was absent from the city, and not finding him, they turned their rage upon the humble unoffending homes of the colored people. After several hours, near midnight, the mayor advised the mob to go home; that " enough had been done, no more need be to convince the abolitionists that the public sentiment of the city was not to be defied."

In these events Mr. Chase had no other participation than that of any other citizen, seeing some part of them; but they filled his mind with a profound indignation, and he denounced them with the bitterness of deep feeling. He disclaimed being an abolitionist, and indeed was not one; but he protested, in fearless and vigorous language, his hatred of all mob-violence, and his fixed purpose to support, in every lawful

"THE BIRNEY MOB"-THE MATILDA CASE.

41

way, freedom of speech and freedom of the press. "FREEDOM OF THE PRESS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERTY," he solemnly and publicly declared, MUST LIVE OR PERISH TOGETHER." Nor in a. future time, when the suppression of obnoxious newspapers became a matter of executive action, did he shrink from the support of his principles on this subject.

The circumstances of the "Birney mob" made a deep impression upon Mr. Chase's mind, and induced him to a careful and thorough examination of the slave-system; though it must not be inferred' from this statement that he previously had no decided opinions concerning it. His early training, his strong religious convictions, and the natural bent of his temper, were alike opposed to slavery; while his observations and experiences at Washington, almost immediately upon his arrival, and during the whole of his residence there (in those days the capital was a prominent slave-market), had deepened his feelings into a fixed aversion; but he thought it a question to be solved rather by social and religious influences than by political action. He now, measurably at least, changed his opinions as to the proper methods of dealing with it.

A few months later, and a new impulse was given to his thoughts. In March, 1837, he was called upon, by some antislavery men, to engage his legal aid in behalf of an alleged fugitive slave.

The circumstances of the case were these:

Matilda, the alleged fugitive, had been a slave in Virginia, whose master had removed from that State to Missouri, taking his slaves with him. On arrival at Cincinnati, the steamboat on which he was traveling was fastened to the wharf or dock, as steamboats were usually fastened. While the boat lay there, Matilda went on shore, and was concealed by some colored people, until she found employment as a servant in the family of James G. Birney; who, ignorant of her antecedents, naturally supposed her to be a free woman. The owner continued his journey to Missouri without her, but left agents behind him

1 "Since 1828," says Mr. Chase in one of his letters to Mr. Trowbridge, “ I had retained a profound sense of the general wrong and evil of slaveholding. But I thought the denunciations of slaveholders by abolition writers as too sweeping and unjust, and I was not prepared for any political action against slavery."

with instructions for her recovery. She was discovered one morning at Mr. Birney's gate, was seized and hurried away.

The friends of the woman, chief among whom were the family of Mr. Birney, were prompt to act in her behalf, insisting that as she had been brought to the steamboat-landing with the full consent of her master, and thus within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Ohio, she could not be taken thence without her consent. Mr. Chase had no doubt of the correctness of this view of the law, and readily engaged to do what he could for her protection.

His first step was to procure a writ of habeas corpus, under which she was taken from the custody of those who held her (by virtue of a writ issued by a justice of the peace), and brought before the president judge of the Court of Common Pleas; but, though the Judge heard the case with courtesy and fairness, like almost all lawyers and judges, and indeed like almost all men of the time, he looked upon claims to slaves as more entitled to favor than claims to liberty. Mr. Chase argued his construction of the law, now universally admitted to have been correct, with all the earnestness of entire conviction. His argument was founded upon this simple proposition, that when a slave-owner voluntarily brought his slave into a free State, the slave by that act became free, and could in no sense be called a fugitive, nor reclaimed as a fugitive under the Federal law. But in vain. The vehement, passionate appeals of the counsel for the slave-claimant found an equally passionate response in the sympathies of both court and people; and Matilda was remanded into slavery.

Mr. Chase's argument was printed and largely circulated, and more or less contributed to turn public attention to the slave-question.

In the audience sat a young medical student, then and for many years thereafter unknown to Mr. Chase, who, full of sympathy for the miserable fugitive, listened with a deep attention to Mr. Chase's argument in her behalf. The issue of the trial filled him with indignation; but he treasured up in his heart the noble thoughts that fell from the lips of her advocate. He afterward went to Europe, and pursued his medical studies in the schools of Paris and other cities of the Continent, and

NORTON S. TOWNSHEND-THE BIRNEY CASE.

43

returned with his hatred of slavery unabated but rather deepened by absence. He settled as a physician in one of the towns of Northern Ohio, Elyria, and won reputation and success. In 1848 he was elected to the Legislature of the State; and was one of that small number who, independent of both parties, and willing to use either for the advancement of their principles, secured, through coöperation with old-line Democrats, the repeal of that code of oppressive enactments against the colored people known as the black laws, and the election of Mr. Chase to the United States Senate. The medical student was Dr. Norton S. Townshend, who as much as any other person, perhaps more, contributed to bring Mr. Chase into the national councils.

But the case of Matilda developed itself under another phase. Some pro-slavery men of Cincinnati instituted proceedings against James G. Birney, under a statute of the State, for harboring a fugitive slave. The case was tried before the same Judge who had heard the argument for Matilda; Mr. Chase now appearing as counsel for Mr. Birney. The defendant was found guilty, and fined fifty dollars. From this decision Mr. Chase took an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, and it was heard before that tribunal. There was a defect in the allegations of the indictment to which Mr. Chase had not invoked the attention of the Court of Common Pleas, and in the Supreme Court he purposely avoided directing attention to it; his anxious desire being to extort a decision upon the main question, whether Matilda, having been voluntarily brought into the State by her master, remained a slave. If she was not a slave, Mr. Birney of course had not harbored a slave.

At this time, the Supreme Court of Ohio had a rule in force which prohibited the publication of arguments of counsel, except upon special direction of the court. The report of the case of the State of Ohio against Birney (which will be found in the eighth Ohio Reports) shows that the court reversed the decision of the Court of Common Pleas, but upon the technical ground to which Mr. Chase had not asked the attention of either of the courts; at the same time the court directed the publication of his argument, though that argument did not in the