had two female slaves, the last remnants of the large slave-property which he had inherited from his father.  One of these was a young and very comely mulatto girl, whom Wallace had made his housekeeper, and whom he sought to make also his concubine.  But, as the girl already had a child by a young white man, to whom she was attached, she steadily repelled all his advances.  Not succeeding by persuasion, this scion of the aristocracy of the Old Dominion—­this Virginian gentleman, and marshal of the United States for the District of Columbia—­shut the girl up in the jail of the District, in hopes of thus breaking her to his will; and, as she proved obstinate, he finally sold her.  He then turned his eyes on the other woman,—­his property,—­Jemima, our cook, already the mother of three children.  But she set him at open defiance.  As she wished to be sold, he had lost the greatest means of controlling her; and as she openly threatened, before all the keepers, to tear every rag of clothing off his body if he dared lay his hand upon her, he did not venture, to brave her fury.

In most of the states, if not in all of them, certainly in all the free states, there is no such thing as keeping a man in prison for life merely for the non-payment of a fine which he has no means to pay.  The same spirit of humanity which has abolished the imprisonment of poor debtors at the caprice of their creditors has provided means for discharging, after a short imprisonment, persons held in prison for fines which they have no means of paying.  Indeed, what can be more unequal or unjust than to hold a poor man a prisoner for life for an offence which a rich man is allowed to expiate by a small part of his superfluous wealth?  But this is one, among many other barbarisms, which the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia, by preventing any systematic revision of the laws, has entailed upon the capital of our model democracy.  There was, as I have stated, no means by which Sayres and myself could be discharged from prison except by paying our fines (which was totally out of the question), or by obtaining a presidential pardon, which, for a long time, seemed equally hopeless.  There was, indeed, a peculiarity about our case, such as might afford a plausible excuse for not extending to us any relief.  Under the law of 1796, the sums imposed upon us as fines were to go one half to the owners of the slaves, and the other half to the District; and it was alleged, that although the President might remit the latter half, he could not the other.

That same Mr. Radcliff whom I have already had occasion to mention volunteered his services—­for a consideration—­to get over this difficulty.  In consequence of a handsome fee which he received, he undertook to obtain the consent of the owners of the slaves to our discharge.  But, having pocketed the money, he made, so far as I could find, very little progress in the business, not having secured above five or six signers.  In answer to my repeated