Wilmington journal. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1844-1895, 1850-10-25

ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE.
.e September Is, 1850.
SIR I have had the honor to receive your note of
this date, informing me that the BILL commonly cal
led the fugitive slave bill having passed both houses
of Congress, had been submitted to 1u for your
consideration, approval, and signature, and request
ing my opinion whether the Sirth section of that
act, and especially the last clause of that section
conflicts with the provision of the constitution which
declares that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended, unless when. in cases
of rebellion invasion, the public safety may re-
quire it,
It is my clear conviction there is nothing in the
last clause, in any part of the Sir section, nor
indeed, in any part of the provisions of the act:
which suspends, intended to suspend, the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or is in any
manner in conflict with the constitution.
The constitution in the second section OF the
fourth article declares that no person held to
vice or labor in State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any
law regulation therein. be discharged from such
service or labor but SHALL be delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such service or labor may be
DUE
1t is well known and admitted historically and
judicially, that this clause of the constitution was
made for the purpose of securing to the citizens of
slaveholding States the complete ownership in their
slaves as property in any and every State or Terri
tory of the Union into which they might escape
(Prtgg rs. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania. Is Pet,
539) 1t devolved on the general government,
power was not only clear and full but according to
the opinion of the court in the above-cited case it
erctus;re the States severally being under no
obligation, and having power, to make laws or
regulations in respect to the delivery of fugitves.-
Thus the whole power. and with it the whole duty,
of carrying into effect this important provision of the
constitution, with Congress and accordingly,
soon after the adoption of the constitution the act of
the 18th February 1893 passed, and, that pro-
wing unsatisfactory and inefficient, by reason (among
al of min &c Hofo lie
Congress are now attempting by this bill to discharge
constitutional obligation, by securing more effec-
tualy the delivery of fugitive slaves to their owners
The Strh and most material section in substance,
declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave NAV
arrest and carry him before any of the officers
named and described in the BILL and provides that
these ohcers and each of them, shall have judicial
power and jurisdiction to hear, examine and decide
the case in summary manner; that if, upon such
hearing, the claimant, by the requisite proof shall
establish his claim to the satisfaction of the tribunal
thus constituted the said tribunal shall give him
certificate, stating therein the substantial facts of
the case and authorizing him, with such reasonable
force may be necessary take and carry said flu
gtive back to the State or Territory whence he or
she may have escaped. and then, in conclusion pro-
ceeds as follows: The certificates in this and the
first section mentioned, shall be conclusive of the
right OF the person persons in whose favor granted
to remove such fugitive to the State or Territory
from which he escaped, and shall prevent all moles-
taton OF such person persons by any process is
sued by any court: judge, magistrate, other per-
son whOmsOeyer."
me to be consistent with the constitution, and
sary indeed, to redeem the pledge which it contains
that such fugitives 'shaIl be delivered up on
claim of their owners.
The Supreme Court of the United States has de-
cided that the owner, Independent of any aid from
State or national legislation may, in virtue of the
constitution and his right of property seize and
recapture his fugitive slave, in whatsoever State he
may find him, and carry him back to the State
Territory from which he escaped. (Prigg Is. Com
monuealh Of Pennsylvania, 16 Pet. 500 This
BILL therefore, confers right the of the
fugitive slave it onl y gives him appointed and
peaceable remedy in place of the more exposed and
insecure, but not less lawful mode of selfredress-
And as to the fugitive slave he has to
plain of this bill it adds coercion to that which
his owner himself mi ht, at his WILL rightfully
exercise and all the Proceedings which it institutes
are but so much of orderly judicial authority inter-
of protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise
directly by the himself of his personal author
ty. This is the constitutional and legal view of
the subject, as sanctioned by the decisions of the Su-
preme Court and to that limit myself
The act of the 10Th February 1893, before alluded
to- far as it respects any constitutional question
that arise out of this bill is identical with it
1t authorizes the like arrest of the fugitive slave the
like trial, the like jud gmen the like certificate with
the like authority to the owner by virtue OF that
tiGcae his warrant to remove him to the State or
| Territory from which he escaped and the consttu-
tonality of that act in all those particulars has been
affirmed by the adjudications of State tribunals and
by the courts of the U. S. without single dissent,
so far as | know BalduUias C. C. r., ST, 500
conclude, therefore, that so far rs the act of the
18th February, 1913, has been held to be constitu-
tonal, this bill must also be regarded and that
the custody restraint, and removal to which the flu
give slave may be sub jected, under the provisions
of this BILL all lawful, and that the certificate to
be granted to the is to be regarded the act
and judgment of judicial tribunal having compe-
! tent jurisdiction.
4 With these remarks as to the consttutionality Of
legality of the custody and confinement to which the
fugitive slave may be subjected under it, proceed
to brief consideration of the particular ques
ton you have propounded in reference to the writ Of
habeas corpus and of the last clause of the S9h
tion above quoted which gives rise to that question
My opinion, as before expressed, is, that there is
nothing in that clause or section which conflicts with
or suspends, or was intended to suspend the priv
lege Of the writ of habeas corpus think so because
the bill says not word about that writ because
by the Constitution Congress is expressly forbidden
to suspend the privilege of this writ unless when
in of rebellion INVASION the public safety
may require it > and therefore the suspension by this
act there being neither rebellion inyason) would
be plain and pal pable violation of the constitution
and no intention to commit such violation of the
Constitution of their duty and their oaths ought t.
be imputed to them upon mere constructions and i'm
plcations and thirdly, because there is no incom
patlblllty between these provisions of the bill
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in it's ut
o most constitutional latitude
Congress, in the of fugitive slaves, in al
other within the scope of its constitutional au
thority, has the unquestionable right to ordan
prescribe for what causes to what extent, and il
n what manner. nerSOnS NAV he taken into cuStodv