Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1850-11-26

nn deprived these State magistrates the powsr of acIne
under Inc law. What The consequence IT,. us take
The State o Pennsylvania for example There were but
three individuals left in tie whole Safe who corlt udci
ally the provisions Of the Act .: 1893 the Circuit
Ju:ge and the two dsrcl Judges. Two OF ihesr
Judges reside in Philadelphia, md one 81 them N
Pi,tsbi.g distance Of more than three hundred
miles apart il is manifest, ihc.sfGra, That The law
in n3"d IN os cases, could not have been executed
for van, officers hand il thus became absolutely
necessary for Congress provide United States officers to
take the place Of the State magistrates who had been super
sedsd Without this constitutional right could have eHls-
ted with adequate mems OF enforcing H. The iuefvc
s!,ye bill Passed chiefly remedy this detect and 10
substitute such officers instead Of the State magistrates those
powers had been nulasi under hc decision OF the Supreme
Court.
II worthy Of remark that several Of our Northern l"ss
n,ues awaiting themseve' OF The decision Of the Supreme
Court nj Gntcr the deep excitement - the ogaion o The
Wmo Provi-n passed laws imposing obstacles to the exc
crton Of the provisions Of the Constitution for the estra
lion OF fugitive slaves. nm sorry, very scuy, ~ state hat
Pennsylvania Is among the number BY dur Act OF 3rd
March 1911 the Of public lals dened for The
safe custody the fugve and the alor who shall offend
no .ns, this provision deprived of his Office and pun
isabu wi heavv fine and disqualification ever again 10
mold Office
The xo principal objection. urged against the fugitive
slave las that It will promote sdnappine' and that II
provide trial by jury 10. the fugitive 10 tho State
10 which he has escaped
The very same reasons may be urged with equal force
against the Act Of 1885, and yet existed for more than half
4 century without cncounierlng anr such o5ections
Ia regard sdnapPEghs fears OF the agitators are al
together grorndsss The law requires that the fugitive
Ter must there prove the satisfaction Of the mngstrat e
the identity OF the fugitive that he the masters property
and has escaped from his service. Now ask would Kid
napper undertake such ,ass Would ne suborn wilt
nesses commit perjury urd expose himself TO detection
before Judge commissioner and IN presence OF the
argus ewes OF s,vehoding community whose feel
ngs will always be in favor Of the slave No. never The
k!dnapper sezes his victim In the silence Of the night or 10
remote and obscure place. and hures him away He Goes
no, expose himself the public gaze. He will never bring
the unfortunate object OF his rapae!y before commissioner
or Judge Indeed nave recollection of having heard OF
read Of case In which free man was Kidnapped undc
the forms law during the whole period Of than a!
a century since the act OF l1S passed.
But 1t objected the law that the fugitive Is not allow
ed trial BY Jury in the State which he has escaped g
IL has always under the OF l793 and so II unde
the present law fugitive from labor is placed upon IN
very same footing under the Constitution, with fugltiv
from lusiice Does charged with the commission
crime in MARY land y P.nnsyvania, he Is deiyere
up upon proper evidence the authorities OF the Stat
from which ne fed there stand his ,ria He has RICH
10 demand ,,l by Jury 10 Pennsylvania Nay more; IN
der our eyfradi,ion with foreign powers does ma
charged with crime committed in England or France IL
10 the Crited States lie Is delivered the authorities
the country from which he fed without Trial by jury II
this country Precisely tie Is the case IN regard 10
fugitive from labor Upon satisfactory proof ne - Delivers
up whou. trial By jury. In the Constitution ne
placed upon the very same footing With fusi'ires from
Justice from other States; and BY treaty. no is Paes