Detroit, Michigan, July 14, 1848.

Dear Douglass:ーI arrived here on the 3d inst., from Sandusky City, at which place we arrived on the 29th ult., but were unable to leave sooner. At this place we held no meeting, for the reason that every hour a boat was expected up the lake, we holding ourselves in readiness. At length on Sabbath morning one came, the Pacific; but as we afterwards discovered, having it expressly stated on their bill, "Built expressly for the accommodation of Southern passengers," I and my friend Langston were, by the pitiful Northern slaves to Southern masters, even on the pure and uncontaminated waters of Lake Erie, refused a cabin passage by the vassal clerk of this meaner than slaver, Pacific.ーAlthough noted as was the clerk by that extremely polite and humble demeanor which ever characterizes the mean and unprincipled; yet so contemptuously indignant did we feel toward the whole concern, that we even did not inquire of the captain into the rules of the boat. There is not doubt but this is the established rule of the Pacificーa name which I desire the friends of freedom to rememberーand neither captain nor clerk had manliness sufficient candidly to state their reasons for the establishment of such odious rules. The truth of the matter is, they are slavesーvoluntary slaves, and as such, ashamed to acknowledge it. We did not get passage until Monday morning, on the Gen. Scott, a Sandusky and Detroit packet.

Sandusky has greatly improved. Not more than four years since, the port consisted of but one street, and a few scattered houses, with scarcely a dock sufficient for the landing of steamers. The place has now some six or eight thousand inhabitants; and so rapidly increasing that the demand for houses is by far greater than the supply. At this time, there are in progress of building not less than 150 houses, and doubtless there are as many more under contract. The people of this place are, in the main, quite civil and polite, being principally Yankees.

There are several colored families in and about Sandusky City, and these are of the most praiseworthy character. Those who reside in the country are generally farmers, and well doing, having land and stock of their own, in a fine state of prosperity, themselves being intelligent and industrious. Those of the town are equally praiseworthy, the greater part owning good houses and lots in the best parts of the city; one young man having a good grocery; another and his wife keep a confectionary and saloon; all of them are doing well. There are two others making preparations for entering largely into the boat store and grocery business.

On passing new buildings, I was much gratified to see in them, busily engaged, colored carpenters, plasterers, painters, and others, all industriously and sociably working on the same benches and scaffolds with other workmen, though bearing a different hue, but not probably a more skillful hand. With the exception of a few, who belonged to the steamers which lie in the bay, I did not see an indifferent looking colored person in Sandusky. I conceive it to be ominous of good, the dawning among OUR people of a better day, when THEY can be found among the artisans, tradesmen, merchants, and property-holders, who first contribute to the establishment of new places.

In directing a letter to Sandusky, I would remark, if intended for the port, one should be careful to direct to Sandusky City, as there are now four Sanduskies in the same State, (Ohio,) three of which are contiguous to the same stream, Sandusky River. For the information of those at a distance, I shall, in this connection, name their geographical relations. There is Sandusky City, or Portland, at the head of Sandusky Bay, below a river of the same name; Lower Sandusky, near the mouth of the river; Upper Sandusky, near the head; and Little Sandusky, two or three miles from Sandusky River. You will at once perceive, except letters be properly directed, they may not reach their destination.

As intimated in my last, on arriving in this city, we found in session the Circuit Court of the U.S., Judge John McLean, of Ohio, President, and Hon. Ross Wilkins, of the District Court, assistant.

This was a suit brought at the instance of Troutman, who is also a practicing lawyer in Kentucky, Agent of Francis Giltner, of Carroll county, Ky., for damages for payment by the law of '93, for loss of the Crosswait family of fugitives, who effected their escape on the 9th day of August, 1843, and located near Marshall, Calhoun county, Michigan, against Chas. T. Gorham, Dr. Oliver C. Comstock, Mr. Hurd, and three colored menーCharles Bergen, Planter Moss, and Nelson Hackett.

The investigation continued about four weeks, and upwards of sixty witnesses were examined.

On the 27th day of January, 1847, early in the morning, about daylight, Troutman, David Giltner, and Francis Lee, went to the house of the Crosswait family, consisting of the old man, his wife and four children, forced their way in, presented arms, asserting their intention of taking them back to Kentucky; whereupon the old man or one of his sons cried out, "Kidnappers! kidnappers!"ーThis had the desired effect of arousing the neighborhood. A colored man, one of the defendants, was the first who came to their aid, upon whom Troutman instantly drew a revolving pistol, commanding him for the life to stand back. When the news got fully spread, an old gentleman mounted his horse, rode through the streets ringing a bell, crying "Kidnappers!ーthe Crosswait family!" and so forth, until the whole town was gathered together about the house of the fugitives, whom, up to this time, it was not proven in evidence, that the people of the peaceful village of Marshall knew to be fugitives. The family was very respectable, and well thought of by all the people of Marshall.

Messrs. Gorham, Hurd, and Dr. Comstock severally came upon the ground, each of whom at different times endeavored to remonstrate with Troutman and his fellows; during which time they were swaggering and boasting of what they intended doing, not only with the gentlemen who attempted expostulation, but with all on the ground. Not satisfied with this overbearing Southern insolence, Troutman mounted a large stone, and commenced a harangue of arrogance which, had the same been attempted by a Northern man in Kentucky, would have cost him at least his neck, upon the highest stake in the neighborhood; at the conclusion of which, he offered a resolution, which received a unanimous negative, except the four Kentuckians, who voted in favor of their own resolution.

Mr. Gorham offered a resolution to this effect:

"Resolved, That these Kentuckians be prevented from taking away the Crosswait family, by moral, legal, or physical force, and that they leave the State in two hours, or be subject to a prosecution for breach of the peace."

This received a unanimous aye.

Dr. Comstock, addressing Troutman, remarked: "My good sir, you must see that you cannot take these people by moral, legal, or physical force." Troutman insolently inquired, "What! do you say I shall not take them?" To which replied Dr. Comstock, "No, sir, I do not say so; but I say, according to the appearance of things, an excited crowd around you, that you must see the impossibility of taking them by moral, legal, or physical force." Messrs. Gorham and Hurd made similar remarks. With a degree of impudence which could emanate alone from those accustomed to domineer over slaves, Troutman demanded the names instantly of Gorham, Comstock, and Hurd, demanding of the crowd to know whether or not they were responsible men, which being answered in the affirmative, he proceeded to write down. Mr. Gorham, in giving his name, observed, "My name is Charles T. Gorham; write it in capitals, and bear it back with you to Kentucky." Dr. Comstock, also remarked, in giving his: "My name is Oliver Comstock, Jr. Be sure to write Junior, as I bear the name of my father, and do not wish him to be responsible for me." There is no doubt but both of these gentlemen, as well they might be, were somewhat irritated at the overbearing and insolent demands of these Kentucky ruffians.

The Kentuckians had a wagon in which to bear off their victims; but failing of success, as a last resort, endeavored to get them before Esquire Sherman, a Justice of the Peace.ーTo this there was little objection; but before its accomplishment, the ever-vigilant colored men, true to their trust, themselves, humanity and their God, "spirited away the whole family on the Underground." This is a fair statement of the case.

Messrs. Pratt and Nowell appeared for the plaintiffs; Messrs. Romain, Emmons, Wells and Clarke for defendants. Mr. Emmons did justice to his cause, and credit to himself. He assumed as his foundation an elevated position, manfully and fearlessly, in a strain of seven hours, (one and a half the first day, and five and a half the second,) ably vindicated the right, the cause of humanity, and the liberties of the North.

In his eloquent plea, he severely castigated the serf-like servility of Dixon, the acting Deputy Sheriff of Calhoun County, who, for the sum of five dollars, dared, in the absence of all legal injunction, undertake, at the bidding of Troutman, to arrest the Crosswait family. It was admitted in his own testimony that he knew he had no authority for so doing; but observed he, in justification of the act, "Mr. Troutman insisted on my doing so, saying that he would be responsible for it." It will be gratifying to the friends of humanity to learn that the High Sheriff of Calhoun county promptly discharged the wretch Dixon from the services of his office. Mr. Wells, who is quite a young man, acquitted himself well and manfullyーMr. Romain, making the closing plea, which was summed up without fear, favor, or affection; with this exception, that he did not take quite so high ground on the subject of human rights as his colleague, the fearless and independent Mr. Emmons.

Mr. Norvell, U.S. Attorney, who opened for the prosecution, made a blustering noise about "Southern Chivalry and gallantry, liberality and patriotism," and all that. To this Mr. Emmons dealt out the severest and most blistering sarcasm.

"The counsel," said he, "talks of chivalry, gallantry, patriotism, and liberality!ーYes, the Southerner is always chivalricーwhen standing before the crouching slave, who is taught that submission is of the Divine willーhe is always gallant, when his only antagonist is the trembling bondmanーhe might well be patriotic in lifting that arm in defence of his country which has never been nerved by toilーwell may his heart be liberal, as the prodigal son's is liberal, when lavishly casting away the means and property of a father, gained by years of care and labor; his being wrung from the hopeless slave!"

Mr. Pratt, who resides at Marshall, closed for the prosecution; and in support of his position, brought forward a written argumentーan old, lame, pro-slavery, colonization argument, long since explodedーto prove that slavery was a Divine Institution, sanctioned by the Bible. He talked about Jewish servitude, Joseph in Egypt, Paul and Onesimus, and the like; declaring that these things were trueーslavery was an institution sanctioned by God, or the Bible was not true, and should immediately be abandoned as the guide of our faith.

Adverting to his antagonist, Mr. Emmons, he observed that the counsel had brought in books to prove certain positions in law, which, did not a student after six months studying know, deserved to be discharged from the profession.

To this, I have but to reply, that if any boy of seven years old knew no better than to believe such silly stuff as that brought forward by Counsellor Pratt, which evidently gained the approbation and sanction of many pro-slavery votaries present, opposed as I am to the corporal punishment, I do think he should be severely castigated for his ignorance. The position of Counsellor Pratt was both mean and dastardly, and never did a slave more earnestly labor for his master, than Mr. Pratt for these slave catchers, by whom he was employed.

In several respects, the servility manifested during the litigation, was in the extreme humiliating. It is true that there are few in Detroit to be found quite so debased; but there were several, and my attention was called by a gentleman at my side, while sitting in the Court room, to the fact that as the insolent upstart young slaveholder, Troutman, would swagger through the Court Chamber, with his curved staff hanging on his arm, some persons present would smile and bow very obedience to him, although his attention was turned in another direction. They appeared to receive it as a compliment merely to catch a glance of his eye. So accustomed is the North to Southern rule, that it has become second nature. How exceedingly mortifying to see Northern men thus "basely bowing their necks to the dark spirit of slavery!"

The charge of Judge McLean to the Jury, I look upon as decidedly partial, weighing heavily in the scale on the side of slavery.ーThe course of the old gentleman throughout the prosecution, I viewed in the same light. It is true that he asserted the wrongs of slavery in the abstract, declaring that it had "no existence, either in the national law, or law of nations." It was "limited in its existence, and local in its character," deriving its whole strength from "municipal authority." He did not venture, after the Bible argument of Mr. Pratt, who, to all appearance, dared him to the task, once make the declaration, that slavery had no existence in the Law of God! I was much disappointed in Judge McLean, and did not find him that independent and liberal-minded jurist that, from all I had heard of him, I had a reason to expect. During the charge he did not once express his abhorrence of slavery, but modestly evaded commitment on that point, by simply saying, "Whatever may be our feelings," and so forth, "the law" is thus and so. Mr. Pratt, a pro-slavery man, and attorney for the plaintiff, frequently during his pleading declared that he was as much opposed to slavery as anybody, while at the same time he used his might to prove its scripture authority. The anti-slavery references, also, of Judge McLean prove nothing, so far as his sentiments are concerned.

It may be contended that the law is directly against the feelings of the Judge, and, of himself, he can do nothing. This I readily concede; and while so doing, alone hold him responsible for his own opinions, independent of Constitutional or State provisions. Such opinions, when emanating from the bench, become the actual law of the land, and are so received and considered in our Courts of Judicature.

This extraordinary opinion of Judge McLean, to which I call your particular attention, announced from the Bench as an essential point in civil jurisprudence, is, to my mind, without precedence in the history of modernーat least enlightened, judicial procedure.

Indeed, in me it may be the result of ignorance of the law of the land, for so thinking and expressing myself, for which I may even be rebuked; but if this is the law of the country in which we live, then is liberty but a by-wordーlitigation for protection a sham, and all judicial proceedings a farce, that should immediately be abolished.

Unexpectedly to every one, either plaintiffs, defendants, or their friends, in his charge to the Jury, giving a definition of a criminal in this and all similar casesーthe charge being brought for "harboring, concealing, hindering and obstructing," in the language of the act of Congress, "knowing them to be slaves," &c., "shall forfeit and pay for each slave, the sum of five hundred dollars," &c.; unequivocally asserted, repeatedly, that it was not necessary to the offence that the person interfering with the rights of the slave-catcher should know that the person or persons so claimed were slaves. If the slave-catcher did but assert his intention, declaring that the persons so claimed were his property, which declaration might be made in the absence of any slave, save the persons claimed, it was sufficient.

The merest interference after this declaration, will suffice to criminate. To make this plain, in reply to an interrogatory by one of the counsel for defence, the Judge remarked: "I wish the Jury to understand me. It is not necessary that the persons interfering should know that the persons claimed are slaves. If the claimant has made the declaration that they are such, though he should only assert it to the fugitives themselvesーindeed, it could not be expected that the claimant would be required the trouble of repeating this to persons who might be disposed to interfereーshould any one interfere at all, after the declaration of the claimant, he is liable and responsible to the provisions of the law in such cases."

Here, then, is the decision of the highest Judiciary in the land, upon the subject of our liberties; and that, too, by one whom his friends call a friend to humanity. To my judgment, such a decision is neither in accordance with philosophy nor common sense.

Moral philosophy teaches, as common sense dictates, that no act can be considered criminal, where there is not a criminal intention; hence the distinction between killing and murder. A person, through mistake, under the impression that he is aiming at a beast, may shoot and kill a man in the bush; though he actually kills the man, he does not therefore commit murder, because there was no intention of murderingーthe object shot at being a beast and not a man.

But in the position assumed by Judge McLean, common sense is set at naught, and philosophy at defiance. Though, says the Judge, a person aims at the rescue of a freeman from the hands of a kidnapper, he must be responsible for an unlawful interference between master and slave! Nor did he make any allowance for the presumption in favor of freedom, until the contrary is proven. It is enough for one to know that the slave-catcher attempted to arrest his victim, and the presumption must be in favor of the master!ーTruly, this is the law of the landーlaw by which you and I must abide!

There is now but one important view to be taken of this matter. Previous to this decision, colored persons had some slight semblance of liberty, but now every vestige has been wrested from usーeach and all of us reduced to the mercy or discretion of any white man in the country, and like the colored man in the South without a "Pass," as it is termed, may at any moment be arrested as the property of another!

Nay, more. While upon the coast of Africa, the seizure of a person is so considered, and treated in this country as piracy. Kidnapping, by the act of Congress and the decision of American Judges, has been legalized; and none dare, under the most burdensome penalty, even utter a word of counsel, or lend a helping hand! I call upon our oppressed fellow-countrymen to look at this law as it now stands; and in so doing, I declare that every colored man in the nominally free States, under it, is reduced to abject slavery; because all slavery is but the arbitrary will of one person over another. This law is nothing more nor less.

To the above, personally, I have but one