New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-11-26

WE SuOuu Hpl Ittl lu>bllltu III HISlegdlttllle
any one of its provisions. But we insist
that the Constitutional compact for the re
clamation of slaves shall be construed
strictly-that all implications and presupp-
tons shall cnure to the side of J ustice and
Humanity-that the right of every man las
against the claim of any other man) to the
possession and use of his own limbs and
faculties, being innate and palpable, shall
not be overruled but upon conclusive evil
dence that the Law has otherwise directed
in his case-and that ii must never be for
gotten that, when the Federal Constitution
was formed, Slavery was regarded by al
most every one as an evil of temporary ma
ture, which must speedily and surely van
ISL in the light of Intelligence, Reason and
Benevolence. To make long story short
we regard the bargain to restore Fugi-
tive Slaves exactly as we do that of An
tonic to forfeit pound of his flesh to Shy
lock; and while we would defer to
the legal obligation, we would be careful
that it be not stretched the twentieth part
of hair.
Now we regard the new Fugitive Slave
Law as going entirely beyond the require
ment of the Constitution, in the summary
and one-sided character of its proceedings,
the direct bride it prolIers to Commissioners
in giving each $50 when he adjudges one
claimed as fugitive to Slavery, but only
s. when he declares him a Freeman-and
in its denial ofTrial by Jury, or any form of
appeal,to every person claimed as fugitive
from Slavery. 1t has other Objectionable
features, but we think these should be
promptly removed, or the law entirely re-
pealed.
But our correspondent says Trial by
Jury in the Free States, to establish or dis
prove the claim of ownership as q slave,
would operate against persons seized as fu-
gitives, since it would compel them to es-
tablish their freedom where they are stran
gers rather than where they are we'll
known But this is the very question in
dispute The claimant aflirms that this
is his slave Pompey, born and reared in
Edgefeld, South Carolina But the claim
ed protests that he never opened his eyes in
Edgefield, but is free man, born in ia
maica. Suppose the latter assertion is the
true one, what will be the alleged slaves
chance to obtain Trial by Jury in Edge
field, after the claimant shall have taken
him thither? What security is there that
he will take him to Edgefeld at all : If
he should, what chance has the black,
whose oath in Carolina is not evidence
against white man Suppose the claim
ant does bind himself in New York to do
thus and so to establish his right to the
slave, what is to compel him to keep that
promise in South Carolina! Itseems to US
that this law looks entirely to the interest
and convenience of the claimant, and not
at all to the safety Of the colored freeman.
As to resistingthe Fugitive Slave Law
OF any other, it is an operation we have no
taste for. We resisted the Mexican War
by trying to exhibit its essential iniquity to
the People, and thus induce them to have
ii stopped. Just so with this law. But we
paid our quota of the taxes which sustained
that War, and acknowledged our indebted
ness for our share of the Public Debt rolled
up by reason thereof. SO we will pay
whatever the law requires of US to defray
the expenses of negro hunting; but if it
wish us to catch or hold any, we respect
fully decline.
Now look here, Mr.. Wing Mechanic.
Y on seem to stand upfor sustaining and en-
forcing this law. Let us try you: Suppose
YOU were coming down Broadway some
morning, and heard that the Marshal was
Just ahead of you, arresting troopot TWEEN
ty or thirty black men, women and chill
dren, and had summoned to his aid every
man walking the street. Now, 1g0uld y0a
go on dom Broaduay, or turn aside and
come dorm some other street? We should
do the latter so 1--WE think) would you.
The difference is that we own the truth to
our Southern brethren and you are hum
bugging them.
Slaves are mol recognized in the Consti-
tuition as property but as persons owing
iobor The distinction is not un-
important.
Mr.. Hunts views on this subject were
frankly and fairly stated in his letter to
Mr. Granger. There was no ambiguity
about it, and no excuse for puzzling over
H.. - .,1A.itiot,