The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-04-07
CITY OF WASHINGTON SUNDAY MORNING, APRIL :. 1850

when not bound by any such provision as exists In ou
constitution, would be under obligation, by any law
of comfy to give extra-tenoa force 10 the laws q
the State from which the fugitive escaped lie would
be discharged by the simple operation OF The law winch
there prevailed making every equal 10 every other
man II there were no positive law prohibiting slavery,
the law OF nature, remaining unrepealed, would fix the
lations of every individual within the territory Inc
constitution, them for this single purpose OF the recovery
Of the fugitive slave, ovedes The local law Of freedom,
and by giving extra territorial force to tile laws OF the
State from which he fled, authorizes his reception II also
assumes the duty OF udicay surrenderng him upon Inc
claim of the party to whom his services due when
established by proper evidence before its tribunals is
case, then, arising wholly under the constitution OF the
United States since, but for that clause In the consutu
ton, no such claim could be made pursued In free
State No State court could have entertained nrsdc-
hon, such, OF an application 70 restore fugitive
slave The courts OF free State could not apply the
rules OF comfy to the laws Of foreign State contra
venng its own polcy and notwithstanding the clause
in the constitution, il slave be brought voluntarily INTO
the jurisdiction Of free State and there escape no rem.
edy whatever exists for his recovery The claim OF the
party in free State is sricssim juris The presnmp
on, in the first instance is always against Its validity,
individual seized to the disabilities under which ne Is
placed by the constitution We have them SIR, presented
in free State controversy between parties who are
OF equal rights the object OF the claim is, by the udg
ment of judicial tribunal upon evidence, TO degrade one
Of them the condition of chatte and cause him to be
delivered up TO the absolute power of the other
Let il be assumed them in accordance with what rs
really the presumption Of law or in other words what
the law itself assumes that the person claimed Is free
mana citizen OF free Stae and entitled to protection
as suchwha tribunal is he entitled to demand TO enable
him maintain his rights Does the constitution OF the
United States authorize postmaster appointed by the
Postmaster General collector, commissioner even, TO
settle this important question: question Of far greater
magnitude than any that be brought before our judi
cia tribunals affecting property merely isit right or
posed the subordinate executive officers OF the gov
ernment-ofcers who not selected with any view to
their competency to perform them Or is not every lnd
vidual thus seized entitled to have his case tried and
heard before the ordinary judicial tribunal OF the land
before independent judges, who appointed for the ad
mnstraon OF justice IN all controversies coming within
the jurisdiction q the judicial power Of this government
If il trne the Supreme Court have declared it to be.
that these controversies arising under the constitution
within the express delegation OF the judicial power,
upon whatground il claimed that any portion OF this
er be vested in persons who are not appointed in
the constitutional mode for the exercise OF judicial unc
tons In the case Of Martin & Hunter, decided as
of the United States held 'sthat it was the duty Of
Congress to vest the whole Judicial power OF the
United States in courts ordained and established by it.
self" The remark, il is true was subsequently qna-
fed, and confined TO that judicial power which is exclu
svey vested in the United States II has been shown
that the power now in question is exclusively vested in
the United States, and does not pertain to the State gov
ernmens their tribunals in the free States. In the
of Houston Moore, in the 5th OF Wheatons Re-
pors, Judge Washington, who gave the opinion OF the
court dscaimed the idea that Congress could authorita
lively besow judicial powers State courts and magis
ates and it was held TO be perfectly clear that Congress
cannot confer jurisdiction upon any courts but such as
exist under the constitution and laws OF the United
States though the State may exercise jurisdiction
in authorized by the laws of the States and not
prohibited by the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal
courts This decision OF the Supreme Court was in con-
fomty with decision which had been previously made
by the high court OF delegates in the State oil Virginia
How then, ask again. consistently with these decisions,
and with the express provision OF the constitution shat
the judicial power Of the United States shall be vested in
one supreme court, and such inferior Congress
may from time TO time establish, whose judges shall hold
IL. .x.1r kali
compensation that shall not be diminished during their
continuance in oice"-how can it be claimed that the
judicial power be vested in any other officers than the
courts or judges so appointed
On the other hand, il this be not judicial power, il
be imposed by Congress the courts or Judges OF
the United States. As early 1891, Chief Justice Jay
and Judges Gushing and Duane considering an act OF
Congress imposing certain ministerial duties the courts
OF the United States unanimously declared their opinion
"hat neither the Legislative nor the executive branches
can constuiionay assign to The judicial any duties oa,
judicial manner 10 i7s2. Judges Wilson, Blair, and Pc
iers addressed letter OF similar import to President
Washington Judges lede and Stgreaves also protest.
ed in an elaborate opinion against the attempt The duty
under this clause in the constitution providing Tor the de-.
livery Of fugitves from service Is OF the same chara
and Is to be administered in the way il it were
stipulated in atreaty with foreign power was under
clause in our treaty with Spain stpulang Tor the
custody and safe delivery Of merchandise coming into our
ports under peculiar circumstances to the Spanish owner
that the claim made in courts for the surrender
OF the Amisad negroes. BY the treaty, il they wefe
as they were claimed to be by the Spanards
who had put them board OF the Amsiad IN Cuba and
from whose possession and control they bad escaped by
successful revolt, the government OF the United States
bound, through its judicial tribunals, to deliver then
up to their claimants But the Africans insisted that they
were not merchandise-that they were treenen. They
stood before our tribunals upon an equal footing with the
claimants They had right 10 insist that their claimants
when they called the courts Of the United States to re-
duce slavery who apparently free, must show
some law, having force in the place where they wert
taken, which made them slaves; or that the claimant,
obligatory on the Africans we'll the claimants
enforced in respect TO them and that by such foreign Law
they were slaves.
Il appeared most satisfactorily by the evidence that the,
were Kidnapped Africans recently imported into the is
land OF Cuba, in violation not only oi their own rights
but OF the laws oil Spain aboshng the slave trade. Ths
Supreme Court held that If they al the time law
missed by those laws as property capable OF being bough
and sold, they were within the intent oil the treaty. inclu
ded under the denomination OF merchandise and sucl
ought be restored 10 the camans for upon that point
say the court the laws OF Spain would 10 furnish thu
proper rule Of Interpretation But admitting this, Judg
Story proceeds il is clear, in opinion, that nehe
OF the other essential facts and requisites has been esab
claimants, to give rise to the federts l Is mos
important consideration, that supposing these African ne
groes not 10 be slaves, but Kidnapped free negroes hs
treaty with Spain cannot be obligatory them, and tn
United States bound to respect their rights much
those o Spanish subjects. The conflict OF rights between
the parties under such circumstances, becomes positive
and inevitable. and must be decided upon the eternal prn
were about any goods on board OF this ship, 10 which
American citizens asserted title which denied bJ
the Spanish claimants there could be doubt OF the gh
OF such American citizens to ltgate the claim before an,