Washington the previous summer. Many questions as to evidence arose, and
the examination of these witnesses consumed about two days and a half.

In opening the defence, Mr. Mann commenced with some remarks on the
peculiarity of his position, growing out of the unexpected urgency with
which the case had been pushed to a trial, and the public excitement
which had been produced by it. He also alluded to the hardship of
finding against me such a multiplicity of indictments,--for what
individual, however innocent, could stand up against such an accumulated
series of prosecutions, backed by all the force of the nation? Some
observations on the costs thus unnecessarily accumulated, and, in
particular, on the District Attorney's ten-dollar fees, produced a great
excitement, and loud denials on the part of that officer.

Mr. Mann then proceeded to remark that, in all criminal trials which he
had ever before attended or heard of, the prosecuting officer had stated
and produced to the jury, in his opening, the law alleged to be
violated. As the District Attorney had done nothing of that sort, he
must endeavor to do it for him. Mr. Mann then proceeded to call the
attention of the jury to the two laws already quoted, upon which the two
sets of indictments were founded. Of both these acts charged against
me--the stealing of Houver's slaves, and the helping them to escape
from their master--I could not be guilty. The real question in this
case was, Which had I done?

To make the act stealing, there must have been--so Mr. Mann
maintained--a taking _lucri causa_, as the lawyers say; that is, a
design on my part to appropriate these slaves to my own use, as my own
property. If the object was merely to help them to escape to a free
state, then the case plainly came under the other statute.