New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-11-28
The Fugitive Slave Inv.

The Fugitive Slave LAW.
We trust our many correspondents whose
structures on the new Slave-catching Law,
accounts of meetings held to denounce it,
&C. &c. we have not been able to publish
will not misunderstood our decision. We
decline their favors simply because we have
already devoted as much attention and
space to their subject as we think desira-
bic. We think we have printed enough to
demonstrate these two propositions : first,
that the law is exceedingly severe and sum
mary in its provisions, and secondly that it
is most repugnant to the hummer public
sentiment of the Free States. We do not
think fifty columns more could add any
thing to what has already been offered on
these points. And as to the Constitutional
arguments, upon which we have several
strong essays still before us, we do not con-
slider an extended popular discussion of it
quite appropriate. 1t may be well to state
the points Of Constitutional objection in
popular argument Of an unjust act, but an
elaborate and methodical arraignment of
the Constitutionality Of any act should be
addressed to some legal tribunal of competent
jurisdiction. As a general proposition, we
esteem it unsound and perilous to assume or
argue popularity that Legislative act is rn-
constitutional, with the intent to deprive it
OF the respect and obedience to which
every valid law is entitled, unless YOU are
preparing to contest the point before the
proper tribunal intending to abide its deci-
sion.
The simple truth is, as we understand it,
that it is not so much this act in particular
that is obnoxious and contrary to our
Northern ideas of constitutional right, as
it is Human Slavery; and this act errs in
stretching the common law of Slavery over
the States which reject and repel it, In a
special case, and for a special end, we have
agreed TO recognize the masters dominion
over his slave, and to that extent we must
respect our engagement or repudiate the
Union altogether If a human being,
found in one of the Free Statesj is duly
found to have been by law a slave in one
of the Slave States, and to have escaped
thence without his masters permission,
then be must be delivered up whenever the
master shall in due form claim and identify
him. But, un6l such claim and proof are
interposed, every black man in the Free
States is under exactly the same law as a
white man, and entitled to the same i'm
munities and safeguards. IF it be wrong
and illegal to deprive white citizen of his
liberty without first proving him unworthy
of it, then it is wrong so to treat a black
man in New-York, whatever it may be in
South Carolina. The law ought to provide
for fair trial and an indisputobly just de-
cision as TO the fact that the person claimed
is really the slave of the claimant before
allowing him to be dragged away into
Slavery. Now the present law confessedly
fails to do this, since it provides for trial
in the SLAVE State to which the claimant
may take his captive in case the claimant
shall see fit and find means to insist on it.
This is in effect hanging the man first and
trying him ofterward.
But how does this differ from the re-
clamation of lehjte fugitives from justice 2
asks The Express. Why, Sirs, it differs
widely and fatally in these respects: l.
The fugitive from Justice is surrendered into
the hands of State authorities, who can
have no interest adverse to seeing justice
done him; while the alleged fugitive from
Slavery is surrendered virtually to those
who have direct and strong pecuniary in
terest in his enslavement. .. The white
fugitive from justice is entitled to the evi-
dence. in disproof of the charges against
him, of his friends, associates, brethren;
but in the Slave States no negro can be
competent witness against white man,
and if forty blacks were ready to swear the
alleged fugitive freeman, their testimony
would avail nothing against that of two
white men who identified him as slave.
3. The white fugitive could only be con-