Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-14
Judge Grier,s Letter.

the Judges OF the supreme Court OF the United States
in reply from Charles Gibbons Esq, making
tain inquiries the subject of the fugitive slave law
PHILADELPHIA October 25, 1850.
DEAR My official engagements have hindered me
from giving that prompt attention the Of
your letter Of the 22d instant which il would otherwise
have received
Until informed by you / was unable 10 apprehend
what possible csud be assigned for the unmeas
ured denuncatons with which the act concerning fug
from labor passed the last session Of Congress
has been received by so many in the northern
portion of our Union Although it would lie improper
for to volunteer extra judicial opinions upon doubtful
questions of construction of public statute vet if any
opinions expressed by the court the late of Hen
nv Garrett, which, though then expressed seem
to incapable of dispute, have any tendency to
correct misrepresentation and calm the public agitation
this subject, perfectly willing to state them.
In the of Garnett, the warrant issued by the
founded the affidavit of the alleged owner
Of the fugitive But son the trial hearingn before
the court after the arrest This affidavit received
that it should he received. The claimant had wholly
neglected make the proper proof, before court
Judge in Maryland to establish the fact that he
owner Of slave person held to labor, and what
the name age SIZE and other marks Of such person. and
that the person described had escaped. Not having
avaed himself of the privilege and facilities given him
by the act of Congress for this purpose decided that
he he bound iv the commonaw rules of evidence
in other cases. where title property has lie
tabshed before court We refused to receive the par.
ties in interest witnesses and wills and other docu-
ments of title, unless properly proven.
The act contemplates trial and n decision Of the
judge involving questions both of law and fact
and unless the rules of the law evidence be
followed when not changed by statute, the tribunal
would be without rule governed only by caprice
defined discretion which would he the exercise of tyr
annical not judicial power. It's the duty Of the Judge
who exercises it render equal Justice both the claim
ant and the person claimed If evidence heard
one side only and that too without regard to any rule
principle known to the law, gross oppression and
wrong would flow from it. Free men and citizens of
Pennsylvania might he 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 magncd law not only gives ''tral" before le
gal tribunal before the claimant can be authorized to
carry the alleged fugitive of the State but it takes
away from the prisoner no right which he would have
enjoyed before this act Of Congress was passed.
In all of extradton, the evidence establishing
the offence and escape of the person demanded is usually
made in the country from which the person demanded
has escaped and is necessarily rorte; and the chief
question he decided by the tribunal before whom he is
brought previously to making an order for his extrad
tiOn only the question OF identity. The party de-
manded has right of course to show that he is not
the person described But if he lie the person described
he has right claim jury trial, tn the question
of his guilt, in the country which he has escaped.
The question of Identity and whether the person claim
ed is such the treaty between the two countries
requires he delivered up. has always been tried
MARTY and without the intervention of jury. No COM
plant has ever been made when trhue have been
Europe, a demand for their extradton, with
out giving them jury trial and why greater privileges
in this should be granted to colored persons
easily perceived. The State of Pennsylvania guarantees
jury trial % her citizens, to persons who are
charged with committing offence within her borders.
Fugitives from another State have such rights The
to which the fugitive belongs IT is TO he pre-
sumed, will do justice its subjects citizens
and whether they do not is concern ri onrs.
However individuals may fancy they have mission to
rectiiy all the face of the EARTH the State Of
Pennsylvania does feel herself bound the Quxoc
enterprise of avengn9 the oppression of ses in Russia
slaves in Georgia. This act of Congress does not
quire that Judge should without trial surrender cit
zen of Pennsyvania TO a kidnapper. The provision,
that in trial hearing under this shall the
tmony of such fugitive he admitted in evidence" is
more than the enactment of established principle OF
the common law that man shall lie witness in his
own Ii this provision were not IN the act,
would receive the testimony OF the prisoner prove
that he the person described or that he
free man. 1t would be temptation to perjury which
tribunal should permit to be presented to
No lawyer would urge before a court such an absurd
construction of the act of Congress that il that
evidence shoud he heard the part If the alleged
fugitive If such the intention of the legislature
it easy express it in unequvocal terms In truth
there nothing equvoca in the language of the il
forids the Judge to hear the testimony of the fugitive
but not the testimony of dsnterested witnesses 1t al
most seems that nothing but desire to render the law
odious for the sake of political agitation could
have led to1so misconstruction and great IL
bel national legislature.
II has been objected also this law that il suspends
the habeas corpus act nasmuch it that the
certificate of the Judge Commissioner shall be con-
elusive of the right of the persons in whose favor
to such fugitive and shall prevent all molesta
ton OF such person persons by issued
by court. Judge magistrate other person whom
soever." But this is mistake. The truth is. that ti.
provision of the law orbiddng the testimony Of the fn
ctve be received and forbddng interference by 9th
process, after certificate is but enactment Of
established principle Of the law, added through
extreme caution, but wholly unnecessary "The writ
habeas corpus is undoubtedly immediate remedy for
erery illegal imprisonment, but no Imprisonment is lille
gal when the process is justification Of the officer and
process whether by writ warrant is legal whenever
it is not defective in the frame Of it. and has ISSUED
in the ordinary of Justice, from mags
trate having jurisdiction of the subject matter -( Com
monweath rs Lecky, Watts, 67.)
person held fugitive, under the certificate Of
Judge gstrate under this is legally imprisoned
under process from court magistrate having urs
dicon" and cannot be released by any other court oil
gstrate writ of habeas corpus homne replegi
ando. The act of 1898 has such provision thai
which is the subject of complaint in the present
yet in the of Wright Deacon Is Sergeant and
Rawle s2 the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided
that a certificate under that legal warrant t.
remove the fugitive the State of Maryland and M
try the question of freedom, and that writ issued
der such circumstances in violation OF the Consti
tuition of the United States"
The chief difference between the fugitive act OF 1854
and that of 1893 is that the former allows a t
be issued by Judge, and the arrest to be made by
public officer and imposes stringent penalties OF
those who interfere, by violence, prevent the
ton of legal process Those who believe that the Con
stituton and laws of their country should be regarded
and obcyed have ground of complaint and those wh
do not will continue to rail at BOTH as usual.
am happy say that brother Kane fully concur
with me in the views here express
am, very respectfully, yours, &C.,
: To CHARLES GIBBONS, Esq.