Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1850-10-24
The Fugitive Slave Law.

We are glad to see a construction put upon
III highly unpopular law which will very much
relieve apprehensions that now prevail. 1t will
be observed that the opinion of the Attorney
General alluded to below, was requested by the
President before he would sign the bill. The
habeas corpus will be found sure protection to
all freenen, at least in the free stales.
BY the way, the law seems to be quite mop
eratiye towards getting men back to Slavery
The first case was in New York: the slave is
now a freeman. The second at PhiladelpI Il:
the STAKEHOLDER didn't bring the right sort of evil
dence, aud on account of this flaw the slave was
discharged by the judge. The third case was
in Detroit the slave is a freeman, his friends
paying $500, and the claiman, paying his own
Gusts.
TIE CoysrTrurIoSALIrY or THE FuGIrrvE
SLAVE BILL.-The Washington Republic con-
tnins the opinion of Mr.. Crit enden. The Attorney
General, given al the request of President Fill
more, before the signature of the Fugitive Slave
Law, on The eonst,utionality OF that law, and
particularly on the question, whether the sixth
section Of the act conflicts with the provision Of
the constitution, wh.ch declares that The prIvi-
lege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when, in cases q. rebe lion or
INVASION, The public safety may require it,
M. Criuenden is of opinion that, so far as it
respects any constitutional question that can a.
rise out Of the act il is identical with the law of
1898, the consTilutionaIity of which, in all its
main provisions, "has been affirmed by the adju-
dicaticns Of State tribunals, and BY the courts of
the United States, without a single dissent" so
hx,t In ID th,f la, So Io
sixth section. 20 which special attention was in
vited by the President. ia reference to its effec.
on the writ OF habeas corpus, MIR. Crttenden re-
marks as follows:
"My opinion, as before expressed, is, that
there Is nothing in that clause or section which
C outlets with, Or suspen4s or was intended 10
suspend, The privilege of the writ of habsas cor
pus. think so, because The bill says not one
word about that writ; because. by the Constliu-
ton, Congress IS expressly forbidden to suspend
the privilege of this writ, sunless wher in cases
Of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require NJ" and therefore the suspension Of this
act there being neither rebellion nor invasion)
would be plain and palpsole violation of The
Constitution; and no iutention to commit such
violation of the Constitution, of their duty, and
their oa'hs, ought to be imputed TO them upon
mere constructions and implications; and third
ny, OeCduSe tncfc - uO lnCOupdtiOlltv between
these provisions of the bill and the privilege of the
writ Of habeas corpus, in its utmost constitutional
latitude"
We do not know how any thing can be more
conclusive, than this reasoning. Indeed, the l.
IDENTITY OF this ACT. far this question is con-
cerned, with the act of 1888, and the adudca-
ton OF the highest tribunals Of the constitution
ally of that act, together with the well known
practice, of hearing cases instituted under that
act befure the Stale tribunals, under the process
Of habeds cMrpus and the repeated instances os
the discharge OF alleged tugltives by such ti-
bunals, appeared to us conclusive upon this !
point, before we had seen the reasoning OF the
Attorney Genera. upon it. which places the
question in sill clearer point OF vie~
We can account for the readiness with which
Il has been assumed that the law was liable to
he objection OF unconstltutionalIly on this
ground, only from the desire which Is apparent
On the part OF those who seize upon this act Tor
The purpose Of agitation, to reader it a. odious
AS possible. Other strange objections 10 the law |
have been invented, and gravely commented on,
such as that Il subjects the ch.ldrsn OF fugitives,
born IN this Commoawe alh. to the liability to be
seized and carried into serv,tude; as if person
born here, where every one is Dor free could
be adjudged fugitive from servilude in ano,h-
er State. Cases are familiar of slaves being
brought to free State by their masters, or com-
my by their permission, and on that ground
claiming their freedom. In such cases IL has
been decided by our tribunals, that such persons
are not fugltlves IN the meaning OF the Consll,u-
liou, or OF the Law of 1898, and consequently
cannot be reclaimed. "a tue same pr,nclple
they are not reclaimable under the present law.
" 18th still less reason could children born here
be claimed as iusItives.
Asi Boston Dolly advertiser.