Daily Richmond times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1849-1850, 1850-10-21
OPINION OF MR.. CRITTENDEN.

| Stltut1on as tor the Law In pursuing his mschle
vous purposes Nut Int.
OPINION OF MR.. CRITTENDEN.
| ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE
September 18th, 1850.
| SIR-Ihave had the honour to receive your note O
this date informing that the bill commonly called
the Fuoitive Slave Bill having passed both houses
Congress- had been submitted to you for your conside
ration, approval, and signature, and requesting nv
opinion whether the sirM section of that act and es
pecay 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
pended, unless when, in cases of rebellion invasion
the public safety may require it,
1t is my clear conviction that there is nothing in the
last clause any part ofhe sirh section nor indeed
in any part of the provisions Of the ch suspends
or intended suspend, the privilege Of the writ
haheas corpus, or is in any manner in conflict with the
constitution.
The constitution in the second section of the fourth
article declares that mo person held to service or labor
in State, under the laws thereof, escaping into
another shall, in consequence of any law or regua-
ton 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 iu-
Ideally, that this clause OF the constitution made
Tor the purpose OF securing to the citizens of slave
holding States the complete ownership in their slaves
property, in any and every State Territory of the
Union into which they might escape Prigg VS.. Com
moncealM OF Pennsylvania, 10 Peters, 539.) 1t de-
volved on the General Government as solemn duty
to make that security etectua. Their power was not
only clear and full but according to the opinion of the
in the above cited case, it was e1clusiye: the
States, severay being under no obligation and hav-
ing power tomake laws regulations in respect to
the delivery oiiugitives Thus the whole power. and
with it the whole duty of carrying into effect this in
prtant provision Of the constitution with Congress;
aud accordingly, after the adoption OF the consl-
tuition the act of the 18th February, l793 was passed;
and that proving unsatisfactory and inefficient by rea-
(among other causes) osome minor errors in its de-
tails, Congress now attempting bv this bill to dis
charge constitutional obligation, by securing more
eecualy the delivery OF fugitive slaves to their own
ers. The santA and material subject in substance
declares that the claimant of the fugitive slave may ar
rest and carry him before any one OF the officers named
and described in the bill, and provides that these Off
GERS and each oil them shall and urs-
dlcon to hear examine, and decide the 10 sum-
mary manner; that ii upon such hearing the claimant
by the requisite proof shall establish his claim the
satisfaction oil the trbunaiths constituted the said ri-
bunal shall give him certificate, stating therein the
substantial facts OF the case, and authorizing him with
such reasohaoe force as may ne necessary take and
carry said fugitive back to the State or Territory
whence he or she may have escaped and then in con-
cuslon proceeds as 1oiiows: The certificate in
tins and the hrst section mentioned shall be conclusive
Oh ue right Oh Tue person or persons N whose favor
Sran'eut 10 remove sucn lSitVe 10 Inc state or errl-
tory from which heescaped and shall prevent all mo-
esaon OF such person or persons by any process is
sued by any court Judge, magstrate or other person
whomsoever
There isnohing IN all this that does not seem TO me
TO be CONSISTENT win the constitution and necessary
indeed, to redeem the pledge which it containslhat
SUCH ugltVes shall De delveredup on claim OF their
owners: c
ne supreme Court OF the Uulted States has decided
that the owner independent OF any aid from State or
national legislation, may, In virtue OF the constitution
and his own right OF property, seize and recapture his
fugitive slave, IN whatsoever State he. may find him
and carry him back to the State or Territory from
which he escaped SPrisg os. Co,nmonwealh of Penn
Sytudnaa, 10 Pet $500 This bill, therefore, coners
right on the owner OF the fugitive slaves only gives
him an appointed and peaceable remedy in place OF
the more exposed and Insecure, but not less lawful
mode OF selt-redess And as to the fugitive slave, he
has to complain of this bill adds no coer-
con to that which his owner himself might at his
will, rightuy exercise; and all the proceedings which
tlnstitues are but SO much OF orderly Judicial ahorty
nteposed between him and his owner, ndconsequeut-
y OF protection to him, and mitigation of the exercise
directly by the owner himself OF hsp personal authority.
This is the constitutional and legal view OF the subject
as sanctioned by the decisions OF the Supreme Court
and to that limit myself
The act OF the 18th OF February 1893 before allu-
ded to, far 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 Xix Judgment, the like certificate with
The like authority to the owner, by virtue of that cet
fcate as his warrant to remove him to the State
Territory from which he escaped. And the consti-
nationality OF that act in all those particulars has been
affirmed by the adudlcation of State tribunals and by
the of the United States without single dissent
so far as know (BaId,Din'S C. e. r., ST. 579)
conclude, therefore, that far as the act of the
18th of February 1898 has been held to be constitutional
this bill must also be so regarded and that the cuso-
dy restraint, and removal which the fugitive slave
may be subjected under the provisions of this bill are
all lawful and that the certificate be granted to the
owner is to be regarded as the act and judgement Ct
judicial tribunal having competent jurisdiction
With these remarks as to the constituonalty of the
general provisions OF the bill, and the consequent e-
galy of the custody and confinement to which the
fugitive slave may be subjected under it, proceed to
brief consideration OF the particular question you
have propounded in reference the Of habeas cor
pus and of the last clause of the srth secton above
quoted, which gives rise to that question.
My opinion, before expressed, is that there is no.
thing in that clause or section which conflicts WITH
or suspends or was intended to suspend the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus. think So because the
bill says not one word about that writ; because by the
constitution, Congress is expressly forbidden to suspend