Sunbury American. [volume] (Sunbury, Pa.) 1848-1879, 1850-11-16

sively that this much abused law differs but
little from previous existing laws on the
subject. The denial of the right of trial by
jury to fugitive slaves, Is talked of by the
aboltionists as great outrage, yet the same
denial has always existed in regard TO fugi-
tives from justice from one State to another,
without regard to color. We make the
following extract from the letter of Judge
Grier.
This much maligned law not only gives a
"trial," before legal tribunal, before the
claimant can be authorized 10 carry the al
legged fugitive out Of the State, but it takes
away from the prisoner no right which he
would have enjoyed before this act of Con-
gress was passed.
In all cases of extraditon, the evidence
establishing the offence and escape Of the
person demanded, is usually made in The
country fIom which the person demanded
has escaped, and is necessarily er parte, and
the chief question TO be decided by the
tribunal before whom he is brought, previ.
ousy TO making an order for his extradiion
is only the question of identity. The party
demanded has right, Of course, 10 show that
he is not the person described. But If he be
the person described, he has no right TO a
jury trial, as TO the question of his guilt, in
the country 10 which he has escaped. The
| question Of identity, and whether the person
claimed is such one as the treaty between
the two countries requires 10 be delivered up,
has always been tried summarily and with.
out the Intervention Of jury. No complain,
has ever been made when tchite men have
been sent 10 Europe, on demand for their
exiradition, without giving them jury trial :
and why greater privileges in this matter
should be granted to coored persons, is not
easily perceived. The State of Pennsylvania
guarantees jury trial TO her own citizens, o,
to persons who are charged with committing
an offence within her borders Fugitive:
from another State have no such rights.
1t has been objected also to this law. ,ha
it suspends the habeas corpus act,-inasmuch
as it enacts that the certificate of the Judge
or Commissioner, "shall be conclusive of the
right Of such fugitive, and shall prevent al
molestaion of such person or persons, by any
process issued by any Court, Judge, Magis
trate, or other persons whomsoever.n Bu
this is a mistake The truth is that this pro
vision of The law, forbidding the testimony o.
the fugitive TO be received, and forbiddin!
interference by other process, after cerlifi
cate, is but an enactment of an esiablishe,
principle of the common law, added througl
extreme caution, but wholly unnecessary
"The writ of kdbeas corpus is undoubtedly a
immediate remedy for erery illegal imprison
, 'nent but no imprisonment is illegal when tn
process is a justification of the officer; an
process, whether by writ or warrant, is lega
: whenever i, is not defective in the frame @
it, and has issued in the ordinary course Q
5 justice, from court or magistrate havin
| jurisdiction of the subject matter."-( Common
wealth VS.. Lecky, Watts, 67.)
I, The chief difference between the fugiliv
= act Of 1850, and that of 1898, is that the for
mer allows a warrant to be issued by Judge
and the arrest to be made by public office
and imposes more stringent penalties on thos
who interfere, BY violence, 10 prevent tn
execution of legal process. Those who bt
lieve that the Constitution and laws of the
country shonid be regarded and obeyed, hav
ground no complaint, and those who do no
will continue 10 rail al both, as usual.