The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-26
TIL E r E 2 u B Lie.
HI n G TON :
SATURDAY MORNING, OCTOBER 90, 1850.
The Fugitive Slave Lav-once more.

beyond even plduSlDle cdFl, mat me uSltlFt
Slave law does not suspend the privilege of the
writ of hdbeas corpus, and that the case ola flu
gtive slave is not one to which the Constitution
extends, either directly OF by inference, the
right of trial by jury and hence that no con-
sttutional objection can be justly alleged against
that law.
1t remains, then to inquire why, If the law be
thus plainly constitutional has It's passage pro-
voked such violent denunciatlon and given
voice to such clamorous demands amongst our
northern population for modification, TOR repeal,
fer resistance
Is the tribunal established by the law made
quate OF unfair-likely, by reason of ignorance
or prejudice, to lend too favorable an ear to the
claimants of blacks as fugitive slaves
This cannot be alleged with truth The
magistrates authorized by the law to act are
Judges of the United States and commissioners
appointed by them-all living in the free States,
owning no slaves, holding the institution in no
favor, having no sympathy with the claimant,
and consequently, if under any bias, inclined by
every thing in their social position and habits to
lean towards the side of the fugitive. To sup
pose that these men would go beyond their
duty and the law in order to convert free blacks
into sls,.r-,i is to suppose them capable of crime
for its own sake-willing, in order TO do wrong,
TO incur the reprobation Of all good men, and
become the scorn of the very society in which
they live, without reward OF the hope of re-
ward for their baseness. 1t is not merely to
deny them the dispositions Of good men, but to
give to their wickedness character of atroclous
and wanton love of evil, proper only to iend.
No man can suppose this of them who is not con-
scious in himself ola revolving regardlessness of
truth, justice, and humanity; and, therefore, it
will not be alleged by any who have preten-
sions TO common sense and common honesty.
The uprghtness of the tribunal being, then,
certain, is its intelligence subject to reasonable
suspicion OF the judges this will not and
cannot be asserted. OF the commissioners APP
pointed by judges admitted to be wise and hui
name, why should it be supposed that they
will be deficient in the qualities of those who
appoint them2 The judges making the ap
pointment have the best means to learn the
true characters of the men whom they select,
and are under the highest obligations 10 select
those only whose intelligence and probity will
fit them for the station. Can we doubt the re-
suit Of a choice made by such judges, with such
motives to choose we'll and wisely, and such
means of guiding their choice Alright?
But this is not the first or only case in which
by law similar powers have been vested in
commissioners appointed by the same judges.
Ru with ha
United States have engaged to surrender fugi-
tIves from justice escaping into this country.
BY these treaties such evidence only is to be
required for the surrender of the offender as
would here justify commitment for trial
that is, probable cause-suspicion less than
primd facie proof. And by the act Of Congress
10 give effect to these treaties, judges Of the
United States, or commissioners appointed by
them, are competent to act, and are TO act upon
copies Of affidavits sworn in a foreign country,
and charging the party with the ofence-the
identity of the person being the only matter TO
which witnesses are 10 be examined here. Now
here we have the same class of officers upon
summary examination on proofs taken in England
or France, without cross examination Of the wit
nesses, causing free white man or woman TO
be sent beyond the United States for trial in a
distant and foreign land This has been in
fact often done; yet no complaints have been
heard Of the incompetency Of the tribunal, no
town meetings 10 denounce the law and clamor
for its repeal. What is the difference between
the two classes of cases? There is no more
difficulty involved in the inquiry in the one
than in the other. He who is competent To
determine as 10 the existence Of probable cause
reasonable ground 10 suspect one fugitive Of a
crime-can scarce be found incompetent to de.
eide upon the priHid taeiep proof that another fug
tive owes service or labor TO a master from whom
he has escaped. II no objection can be supposed
in one case more than the other for want of ca
pacity, neither can any want Of fairness be i'm
puted in the one more than in the other
The competency and fairness being in both
cases admitted or proved, why should the exc
cution Of the law in one case be violently OPP
posed, and in the other pass without complaint
or censure7 To account for this difference, has
a single instance been known, under the &C, OF
1893, of the surrender by magistrate Of free
man as a fugitive save2 Has such an instance
been understood 10 EXIST We confidently an
sweT-No. Why, then, should such things be
looked for under the present lawl or are they
in fact looked for? In the recent cases at De
troit and Pittsburg, which created such excite
Inents, and called together such motley assem-
blages Of riotous protesters against the law,
there was not a suggestion that the per
sons arrested were not fugitive slaves on
the contrary, that fact was admitted, and
that fact produced the excitement Had the
persons arrested been freemen. there would
have been no excitement-no tumultuous az
semblage-no threats--because the legal trbu-
nal would, in peaceabe and orderly manner,
have discharged the parties Was there sus-
piciOn Of unfair bias on the part of the trbunal7
Quite the contrary: it was known that the ia
gluves were slaves-that the Commissioner
would do his duty--and that, doing his duty
he must surrender the fugitves to their owners
This was known aud this produced the excite