North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1852, 1850-11-06
Hon. ROBERT e.. GREER.
FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW.

| Dear Sir-NIy official engagements have hndered
me from giving that prompt attention to the contents
of Your letter of the 22d inst, which 1t would other
wise have received.
Until informed by you, was unable to apprehend
what possible cause could be assigned for the I'M
measured denunciaons with which the act concern
ing the ngitives from labor, passed at the last
sion of Congress, has been received by many per-
sons in the Northern portion of our Union. AL
though it would be improper for me 10 volunteer ex-
judicial opinions upon doubtful questions of con-
sfruction of public statute, yet if any opinions
pressed by the Court the late of Henry Gar
nett, which, though not then expressed, to
me incapable of dispute, can have any tendency to
correct misapprehensons and calm the public ag
ton on this subject, am perfectly willing to state
them.
In the case of Garnett the warrant issued bv the
Court was founded on the affidavit of the alleged
owner of the fugitive But " the trial or hearing"
before the Court, after the arrest, this affidavit
not received in evidence, did the counsel for the
claimant insist that it should be received. The claim
ant had wholly neglected to make the proper proof,
before Court Judge in Maryland, to establish
the fact, that he of slave person held
to labor, and what was the names age, size, and 9TH
marks of such person and that the person de-
scrbed had escaped. Not having availed himself of
the privileges and facilities given him by the act of
Congress for this purpose, We decided that he
be bound by the common law rules of evidence. as in
other where title 10 property has to be esab
lished before Court. We refused to receive the
parties in interest witnesses, and wills and other
The act contemplates trial and decision of the
Court or Judge, involving questions both of law and
fact and unless the rules of the common law, as to
evidence, be followed when not changed by statute,
the tribunal would be without rule, governed only by
CAPRICE underlined discretion. which would be the
exercise of tyranncal, not judicial power. 1t is
the duty of the Judge who exercises it, render
equal justice both the claimant and the persen
claimed. If evidence were heard on side only,
and that, too without regard any rule principle
known to the law, gross oppression and wrong would
flow upon it. Free and citizens of Pennsylvania
might be kidnapped into bondage, under forms of
law and by the action Of legal tribunal, sworn to
do equal and exact justice to all This much
magned law not only gives trial. before le-
gal tribunal, before the claimant can be authorized
carry the alleged fugitive of the State takes
away from the prisoner right which he would have
enjoyed before this act of Congress passed.
I In all of extradition the evidence establish
ing the offence and escape of the person demanded,
is usually made in the country from which the per-
son demanded has escaped and necessarily pnre,
and the chief question to he decided by the tribunal
before whom he is brought, previously to making
order for his exradition is only the question of ide
tty. The party demanded has right, of course, to
show that he is not the person described But if he
be the person described, he has right to claim
jury trial as to the question of his guilt in the country
to which he has escaped. The question of identity.
and whether the person claimed is such one as the
treaty between the two countries requires be de-
livered up, has always been tried summary and
without the intervention of jury. No complaint
mas ever Oeen MADE Wnen 1OhlLe nave been sent
to Europe demand for their extradition, without
giving them jury trial and why greater privileges
in this matter should be granted to colored persons is
not easily perceived. The State of PENNSYLVANIA
guarantees jury trial to her citizens or to per-
sons who charged with committing an offence
within her borders. Fugitives from another State
have such rights.
The government to which the fugitive belongs, it
is TO be presumed, will do justice to its subjects
or citizens. and whether they do or not, is no
concern of ours. However individuals NAV fancy
they have mission to rectify all wrongs on the face
OF the earh the State of Pennsylvania does feel
herself bound to the QuXotic enterprise of avenping
the oppression of serfs in Russia slaves in Geor-
ga. This act of Congress does not require that a
Judge should, without trial. surrender a citizen of
Pennsylvania to kidnapper. The provision, that
In no trial or hearing, under this act, shall the tes
mony OF such fugitive be admitted in evidence is
no more than the enactment of established princ
pie OF the common law, that no shall be witness
IN his own case. If this provision were not in the
act, would not receive the testimony of the prison
er to prove that he not the person described or
that he free man. 1t would be a temptation tn
perjury, which tribunal should permit to be pre-
scented to any man. No lawyer would urge, before
Court such an absurd construction of the act of Con-
gress as, that 1t means that evidence should he
heard on the part of the alleged fugitive If such
were the intention of the legislature it was easy to
express IT In unequvocal terms. In truth there s
nothing equvocal in the language of the act 1t for
bids the Judge to hear the testimony of the fugitive
but not the testimony of dsinterested Witnesses II
almost seems that nothing but desire to render the
law odlous for the sake of political agitation could
ever nave LED 70 80 gross misconstrdction, and so
great q. libel on our national Legislature
4l has been objected also to this law that il sus
penis the ho6e0s corpus act-nasmuch as it. ei1acts
that the certificate of the Judge, or Commissoner:
snSll % conclusive Of che right of the persons in