The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-05-07
cITY OF WASHINGTON, TUESDAY MORNING, MAY Z. 1850.

garded in the light of slaves We have suppose. in all
the States articles OF ndenure entered INTO before tne
county court OF record, BY which appfen-
tices are created Now, in the case Of an apprentice
would my friend contend that this new tribunal which
about 70 be created shall readndicale upon the articles 81
apprenticeship, and nullify the record which the indl
vidual claiming the apprentice shall present-a record
made another Stale Yet the question whether the
boy is rghully wrongfuy an apprentice may be rein
yesgated and the record OF his apprenticeship may be
set aside BY the appellate court in the State where the
business originated II belongs to the appellate judcato-
es Of the States to dssEmae whether The records Of
fully made up State Jaws provide, in the OF pauper
parents unable TO support their infant children, that The
children may be taken BY the county authorities and put
TO labor shall be made apprentices and master and
the obligation which the master comes under is matter
regulated BY law. It is always judicial question
whether The facts on which the apprenticeship a such
case depends authorize the court 10 take child from its
parent and bind an apprentice The degree Of power
ty Of the parent, the condition Of the child. and many
whether The law will justify The court ID taking and bind.
Ing the child 10 master But when the court decides
and makes up the record. whether ghtfully or wrong
July, deny nat ms government ough', and doubt
yacae and nuy the records of State upon inquiry
whether the apprentice be or be fugitive from labor
So, in like manner, the laws OF State which determine
who are and who are not slaves should be applied and
interpreted BY State authority; and in my opinion, Con-
gress ought not II il could, to devolve the final decision
TO slavery upon the inferior federal tribunals which il
may be necessary to create for the purpose OF restoring
fugitive slaves.
Now, sir put it to the gentleman--using his own il.
usraton which he has just given usI put to him to
say whether in Of apprentice this Congress s
to institute tribunal in the State OF Ohio, Illinois,
other States on matters OF apprenticeship Shall
dertake to establish tribunals with power to nuy
record Of apprenticeship made up in Kentucky Shall
the lowest officers acting under federal authority deter
mine that person claimed an apprentice, Or TO
another term, fugitive from labor ought be
turned 70 the jurisdiction whence be fled because the
ucat frih fba Stafa ~.
stand Or perform it's daty IN making up the record
Well. sir let US see il there any other illustrations
which will bear upon this argument
The constitution requires that the States shall deliver
up ptngyes from justice. The question occurred to me
in the course OF the remarks OF my friend, man,
after ne has been convicted be restored, he flies from
pcnenary, as fugitive from justice, in the sense OF
the constitution
A SEsAroR. Certainly he can. -
MIR. UNDERWOOD. Yes; suppose he can. That
the conclusion to which my mind came but doubt
very much whether that idea entered the mind Of the
trainers OF the constitution.
Certainly the arrest and bringing oendefs to trial and
punishment were hc leading objects 10 be- attained by
this provision OF the constitution and il is not
BILE 10 suppose that the wise men who framed did not
cient to make the insertion OF such provision necessa
ry However that may be, yet in the ulflment Of the
provision requiring the surrender OF fugltyes from jus
ce il may be important to determine how far the States
and the general are bound to go in its
ton. What rules are 10 govern Suppose convict
escapes from the penitentary OF Kentucky and fees TO
the State oil when demanded, governor
Of Ohio, other authorities Of that State 80 behind the
record OF his conviction and renvestigate his guilt and
thereupon refuse to deliver him up because such in.
vesigaton his innocence was manifest! The act OF
Congress respecting fugiives from justice provides that
copy OF an indictment found affidavit made before
magistrate. shall be sufficient to base demand for the
delivery OF the fugitive Can the fugitive be permitted
exculpale himself by producing counter evidence be-
fore the governor who directs his arrest, or before the
judge who may grant him writ OF habeas corpus1 The
practice. far as am informed, has generally been to
evidence. and deliver the accused.
50 that he may be taken to the State where the alleged
offence was committed for trial This, however, has not
Congress- in legislaing with view 10 carry out this
constitutional provision, undertake any way TO organ
ize tribunal in the State where the arrest is made. and
whether the individual demanded is properly fugitive
from justice or not' Comparing the language oil the
sections IN the constitution relating TO fugiiives from
labor and fugtves from JUSTICE and there appears to be
much foundation for argument TO justify thorough
investigation OF the guilt OF the person alleged 10 be
fugitive from justice, as there IS TO go fully into the
question OF slavery or freedom IN respect 10 fugitive
from labor. The two sections read as follows
No person held service or labor one State, under
the laws thereof escaping into smother State shall In
q ANY w q sn, .a s es @ m
claim oil the party 10 whom such service or labor may be
due
person charged in any State with treason ( charged y
you see the expression here, felony. other crme who
shall fee from justice, and be ound IA another State, shall
which be ed be delivered up be removed the State
having jurisdiction Of the crime.
Now sir the point am investigating is, whether there
any substantial difference between these two clauses OF
the constitution in reference to the powers OF the tribunal
which Congress may find il necessary 10 create with
view to enforce these constitutional provisions II there
is obligation, The gentleman from Connecticut in:
sisis binding Congress TO invest the tribunal with full
authority TO decide the question OF slavery or freedom
in reference fugitive slaves is IL not equally obligatory
on invest The tribunal with power in reference 10
ugives from justice to decide upon the innocence or
guilt OF the fugve "A person charged with treason,
felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice
Mark the language: Who shall flee from justice" Now,
sir does not that expression give you the right 10 inquire
into the guilt or innocence OF the alleged fugitive from
Justice Just much the other clause gives the right
10 ascertain whether the alleged fugitive from labor is
20 into the question OF slavery or freedom, must you
not in the other case 20 into the question OF the guilt
or innocence How is il possible for any one TO be
fugitive from Justice, unless he y guHfy oil some
crime IL il had been the design OF the members oil
the convention have all persons charged with treason,
felony or other crime, delivered up, TO be removed to the
State having jurisdiction OF the crime, without inquiry
into their guilt innocence before the delivery seems
10 me the idea would have been better expressed by omit
ting the words fee from justice" The insertion OF these
words, therefore, has laid foundation upon which II
may be very plausby conended that the authorities OF
State not bound to deliver person charged with
crime until upon investigation his guilt shall be manifest
ed But that construction of the constitution has not
prevailed The act OF Congress prospecting fugitives
from JUSTICE and persons escaping from the service OF
their masters passed in 1793 is the best exposition oil
he true meaning OF the constitution II worthy Of
mark that this act includes both fugves from justice
and fugves from labor and does not in respect to either
req ure thorough and full investigation. The present
at,oa OF an indictment affidavit against the fugitive