Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1850-11-14

would he take this trouble and be at this ex
pensc to reclaim him as property, he were not
as property, worth more than twenty dollars P
Surely not. Then read sentence in the constI
tuition of the United States. In suits of COM
mon law where the value in controversy exceed
twenty dollars, the right of trial BY Jury shall be
preserved" The remedy prescribed in this stat
ute Tor the owner is not, in shape, suit at COM
mon law No. The right of slave holder to
his slave is so much more sacred than the right
of man 10 his own horse, that Congress has
provided, IN this statute, summary way of pro-
ceedlng, that bids defiance to all provisions to
secure personal liberty; while the owner of his
horse, If he seeks any remedy, it must be, in
shape, common law remedy; and, in such a
case, he cannot deprive his antagonist of trial
by Jury, whether he stands in court as plaintiff
or defendant.
Now, Mr.. Attorney General, passing by all
these considerations, and, speaking OF this decis.
ion of the commissioner, founded, as 1t NAV be.
wholly upon eT parte evidence, and even that
may be the evidence of the owner or claimant,
uses this language:
eff it is shown upon the application of the
fugitive for writ of Habeas Corpus, it prevents
the issuing of the writ if upon the return 1t
discharges the writ, and restores or maintains
the custody"
Tins, according to Mr.. Crttenden, attorney
General,) this summary process, founded upon
er Parte evidence, excluding any trial by jury,
and conclusive to deprive man Of his liberty,
as dear as life, and sure TO prevent the issuing
OF the writ Of Habeas Corpus, or to kill it as
soon as a return is made upon it, does not
suspend the priv lege of the writ Of Habeas
Corpus, nor is it, in any manner, in conflict with
the constitution" By this use ofthe words sus
pend and conflict, the Attorney General must be
understood to mean, that this summary process
does not hang the privilege of the Habeas Cor
pus, but kills it without the ceremony of hang
ing; and also, that wantonly trampling The Con-
sttution under foot is not acting in conflict with
it
In adverting to this statute as a whole, the
power OF Congress to pass any such law is who'll
ly denied, we shall be told, that Congress pass
ed law on that subject in 1893. which has
never been repealed. True. So it was and is.
But what of that? If Congress overleap and
disregard the constitution dozen times, the
constitution still remains our rule of faith. and
Practice in evil government, or we have no rule
at all. Those breakes of the constitution con-
denim the preachers, but leave the constitution
in full force. Moreover, the supreme court in
the case Of Prigg VS.. Pennsylvania, decided the
provisions Of that act to be unconstitutional so
far as it conferred power upon State officers -
Other portions of the act might appear quite as
objectionable to some other tribunal.
The power to pass this statute is not among
the enumerated powers of Congress in the con-
stltutlon, nor is it necessary to carry any of
those powers into effect. The article of the
constitution upon this subject gives no power to
Congress! but is merely a stipulation between
the States, what each shall do IN what regards
other States, or the citizens thereof This is the
expressed by Mr. Webster in tue Senate last
session. He SAID it had always been his view
OF the subject. This he must have forgotten
when he voted for the Nnnbns Bill
The section of constitution in question IS as
follows, TO wit:
"No person held to service or labor in one
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into an
other, shall, in consequence of any law or regu-
lation therein, be dischai ged from such service
or labor but shall be delivered up, on claim of
the party to whom such service or labor may be
due"
& This confers no power whatever upon Con-
gress 1t prescribes the duty of delivering up
the fugitive. But who is thus TO deliver up p
Not any individual, surely. 1t would be assault
and battery and false Imprisonment for any in
dividual thus to deliver up, unless in pursuance
of some law of the state made for that purpose.
1t is for the State to deliver up THAT is, enact
a law for the purpose, and direct tine mode ol as
pertaining the facts, whether the person had es.
capped from service, whether he owed service to
any person, and whether he owed it to this
claimant; and they might require the interven.
ton of a jury to decide these facts.
Should STAKEHOLDER ask. what shall be done
in case State neglect to make any such pro-
vision the answer is ready. You, sir, have no
remedy. The neglect of duty, in State, gives
no power to Congress. What remedy has Mas.
sachu,etts, or their agent, for being drivenfrom
South Carolina when there on legal and lauda-
BILE business None. Congress can provide
none. If one State forfelts all the benefits of
the consttu ion, no provision exstst, to take the
forfeiture. This appears to be defect in the
constitutions but it is one for which no remedy
exists, nor can exist, unless brought into the
constitution by an amendment.
Our constitution makes no mention of slaves or
slavery but it seems conceded, that the people
of the South voted for the above recited, under.
standing it to mean slaves. Probably NE Peo-
pie Of the North voted for it, understanding II 10
mean what it says, and no more. In every free
State minors, bound apprintices, convicts in the
pententiary, &C., are literally held to service of
labor, by the force of law. They are persons,
too, not merely things or chattels; whereas
slaves, while in a slave state, are moi persons but
things, mere goods and chattels. When they
break out from the region Of slave lands, they
become persons. While in slave state, they
owe no service to any one, any more than a
horse owes service to his owner nor does any
aw require any service or labor from them
That is all the effect of brute force. All the
laws do in the premises is 10 protect the
)wner or master in those acts of cruelty, which
would be criminal were it not for the relation Of
master and servant.
Now, it is probable that the people of the free
States voted Tor the constitution in the honest
)eiefthat the section above cited referred only 10
persons, not things to persons subject to civil,
NJ well as criminal law, and to persons, such as
here usually are some in every State. Ii
here is any plausibitg in this view of the sec
ion above cited, ii is of no Importance now, ex-
cept to show how successful the slave power is
! producing an opinion Of the public. and even
If the National Judiciary, favorable to the sys.
tenn of slavery.
There are two other clauses of the constiti-
ton, to which reference must be made, as being
directly violated by the fugitive slave act.
They are as follows, 10 wit: =" The night OF
people to be secure in their persons, houses, pa
pers and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizG - sball not be violated, and no war