Page:Oregon Historical Quarterly volume 23.djvu/179



with Respondents son, Mark Ford, who was then in California, and that upon the return of your petitioner, Respondent would comply with his agreement aforesaid as made in Missouri and discharge and liberate your petitioner and family from the service and control of said Respondent, and further that said respondent would give your petitioner a portion of the gold that he might dig in California. That your petitioner desirous of obtaining his family without difficulty with Respondent consented to the proposition of Respondent's and in pursuance of the same did go to California in the spring of the year 1849 and worked in the gold mines for said Respondent under the control and authority, or direction, of Mark Ford aforesaid until the spring of 1850, when he returned to the house of Respondent in Oregon Territory, That during the time your petitioner was in California aforesaid, he was informed by said Mark Ford, that he your petitioner had dug and placed in his Mark Ford's hands, for Respondent about the sum of Nine hundred dollars in gold dust, besides cooking for the mess to which he your petitioner belonged.

That when your petitioner returned in the spring of 1850, as aforesaid, Respondent in violation of good conscience and the contract as afore said, refused to liberate the said Mary Jane, Roxanna, and James, children of your petitioner and his wife Polly, but permitted your petitioner and his wife and one infant child of your petitioner to leave the service of said Respondent, that your petitioner did not at that or any other time make an agreement with said Respondent or any one for him, by which said Respondent was to keep said minor children and be entitled to their service until they became of age, or for any period of time, but on the contrary claimed that they should be then liberated and delivered to your petitioner, and has ever since sought to obtain the custody and control of said children.

Your petitioner further answers and says, that said Respondent, has no legal or equitable right to the service or control of said minor children. That your petitioner does not know whether said Respondent has ever been advised to take your petitioner and his family back to Missouri and sell them into slavery or not, but he does know and states the fact to be that Respondent has often threatened to so do, for the purpose of detering your