The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-24
THE REP u BLIC.
w ASHIN GTON:
THURSDAY MORNING, OCTOBER "a. 1850.
The Fugitive Slave Law and the Trial by
Jury.

i
readers the clear and unanswerable opinion of
the Attorney General upon one of the objections
urged against the Fugitive Slave law lately
passed by Congress; to wit, that it suspended the
privilege of the writ Of habeas corpus. That
opinion must set this objection at rest forever
and we now recur To the subject, according to
an intimaton then given, for the purpose OF OF
fering some remarks of our own upon an obJec-
ton not particularly embraced by that opinion,
which is. that the act is in violation of the Con-
stitution because il does not give the fugitive
a right of trial by jury in the State in which he
may be arrested.
We address what we have TO say, not 10 the
supporters OF the "hgher law" docTine---not
10 those who affect themselves to believe, or
have been persuaded by others 10 believe, that
man can swear to support the whole Con-
stitution, and yet while he refuses 10 obey
part of il may be an honest man. To these
and such as these, whether dupes or decevers,
we do not address what we have TO say, know
ing that the wickedness of the one class cannot
be reclaimed, nor the folly of the other enlight-
ened by any thing we can say. But we ad-
dress those upright and patriotic men who see
in the Constitution Of their country nothing
inconsistent with the law of God, and who
stand ready, as christian men and good citi-
zens, to render obedience 10 the Constitution
and the law, and TO every part of each; and
we ask from them an impartial consideration Of
what we have to submit.
In order that the precise objection 10 which we
refer may be accurately understood, we insert
resolution adopted at convention held in Ro-
chester:
s'Resolped That We consider the Fugitive Slave
law, recently passed by Congress, unconstitu-
tional, in that it abrogates the rights OF habeas
corpus and trial by jury, and prescribes form Of
procedure against fugitive slaves which overturns
the most essential principles of common and con-
sttutional law"
The objection here stated is, that the Fugi-
tive Slave law is 9 unconstitutional" because
it . abrogates" g the right of trial by jury and
prescrlbes form Of procedure" 90 which over
turns the most essential principles of common
and constitutional law"
Now no law can "abrogate" right which
does not exist; and to support this objection
the first thing necessary TO be shown is, that
in this case Of fugitive slaves, OF in cases anal
ogous TO it, right to trial by jury exists under
the COnstitution-but this cannot be shown.
The Constitution of the United States Sc
cures the right of trial by jury in two cases,
and in two only. BY the Sd clause of section
9 of the third article, and the 9th amendment,
'the trial of all crimes, except in cases of
impeachment, shall be by jury" and '.the &C
cused shall ENJOY the right Of a speedy and pub
lie trial by an impartial jury of the State and
district wherein the crime shall have been com
mitted;" and by the 9TH amendment, Sin suits
versy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right Of
trial by jury shall be preserved"
II is plain that the surrender Of fugitive
slave belongs not to either of these classes. The
procedure is not 4 writ at common law, nor a
criminal prosecution for a crime against the
United States, and no ingenuity can derive
even plausible argument to show that such
procedure is either the one or the other. 1t is
manifest, then, beyond doubt or reasonable de-
NAL, that the Constitution of the United States
gives no right Of trial by jury TO one claimed
as a fugitive slave; and, therefore, the law in
question does not deny.or withhold any right
secured by the Constitution, and hence is not
unconstitutional IL by Constitution, in the
resolution we have quoted, be meant State
constitution, then the resolution is absurd. The
act of Congress does not rest for its support
upon any State constitution, but, on the contra
ry if not inconsistent with the Constitution Of
the United States, is, by the express provision
Of that Constitution, "the supreme law of the
land, :" "any thing in the constitution or laws
ofany State to the contrary NOTWITHSTANDING"
The right Of trial by jury then not being by
the Constitution secured 10 persons claimed as
fugitive slaves, is it secured in any like or ana
logous cases? Two cases analogous TO this ex
lst; one Of fugitives from justice escaping from
one State into another-expressly provided for
in the COnstitutlOn-and the other Of such fu-
gitlves from foreign countries-arising under
treaties made by foreign powers with the Uni
ted States. In neither of these cases has any
trial by jury--ether as to the offence or the
identity Of the offender-ever been secured or
claimed. In each case, upon affidavits sworn
OF indictment found in the country or State in
which the offence is alleged to have been com
mitted, and proper proof Of identity, to be sub
mltted 70 and considered by Judge, commits
soner or other magistrate without the aid Of a
jury, the fugitive is sent into the State or coun-
ty from which he escaped, to be there tried
with or without a jury-publicly or secretly
fairly or not fairly-with or without counsel
in the presence or absence Of his accusers, upon
written OF oral testimouy-upon evidence d.
rect or circumstantial, on knowledge or hear
say, on prescriptions light or strong, and with
or without the right Of being heard and Of pro-
ducing witnesses in his defence, as the law Of
that State or country may prescribe
These cases bear close analogy TO the case
Of the fugitive slave, far as tho United States
have jurisdiction over them That Jurisdiction
extends only to the removal upon reasonable
cydence--presumptly or priD,d tacie--of the
respective fugitives to the State or county from
which they may have fed, to be there disposed o.
according to its laws. This removal is accom-