The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-10-24

| But the cases are analogous, and under the
| Constitution to be disposed OF in the same way,
by summary proceeding and upon primd tac'e
proof. This we will show by the highest au-
thority for learning and intelligence, and which
cannot be suspected of any bias towards the
Southern side of the question. That authority
is the late eminent Mr.. Justice STORY.
In Book 8, chap 40, of his Commentaries on
the Constitution of the United States, he con-
siders together the subject of fugitive offenders
and fugitive slaves. After quoting the clause
respecting iugitives from service, he says:
This clause was introduced into the Constitu-
ton solely for the benefit of the savehodng States,
to enable them TO reclaim their ugitire slapes who
should have escaped into other States where slavery
not tolerated. The want of such provision I'M
der the Confederation was felt grevous incon-
venence by the slaveholding States, since in many
States aid whatsoever would be allowed to the
owners, and sometimes, indeed, they met with
open resistance"
And in the next section he thus expresses him
| SELF
"H is obrious that these provisions for the arrest
and removal of fugitves of both classes contemplate
summary ministerial proceedings. and not the ordi
whether the complaint be rosH founded, or the claim
of o,rnsship be established beyond ell legal conro-
uessy. In cases of suspected crimes, the guilt or
| innocence of the party ia to be made out at his
trial, and not upon the preliminary inquiry whe-
Their he shall be delivered up. All that would seem
in such to be necessary ID, that there should
| be prina facie evidence before the executive au-
thority satsfy its judgment that there is proba-
BILE to believe the party guilty. such as upon
an ordinary warrant would justify his commit
ment for trial And in the cases OF fugitive slaves
there would seem to be the same necessity V rsqiir
ing priua4 facis proofs of ownership, without
putting the party to formal assertion Of his rights
| BY suit at The common la,v. Congress appear to
have acted upon this opinion; and, accordingly, in
| the statute upon this subject, have authorized
| summary proceedings before a magistrate, upon
| which he may grant warrant for a removal"
Now, if Judge STORY understood the Consti-
tuition, and if, understanding it, he might be
safely trusted to declare its true Interpretation,
| it follows that the Constitution contemplated,
as to both classes of fugitives, Summary" pro-
ceedngs, and not "ordinary Judicial investiga-
TONS" that primd tacie evidence of ownership
in one case, and probable cause to believe the
existence of guilt in the other, only ought to be
required and that the owner ought not to be
| put to "a formal assertion of his rights by a
! suit at common lawn And this clear opinion
of Judge STORY answers and refutes another
point Of objection in the resolution we have
quoted: that the law overturns "the most es-
.ential principles of common law" for that
opinion shows that neither the Constitution nor
the act of Congress of 1893 contemplated any
suit at common law; and so the principles OF
the common law have nothing to do with the
| matter. Indeed, the trainers of the resolution
seem to have understood as little of the essential
principles of the common law as they mani
| testify did of the Constitution. When and
where did the common law ever empannel a
| Jury TO determine whether fugitive should be
committed for iral-whether person arrested
| in one jurisdiction should be sent back to that
| from which he escaped, OF in any such case?
! When and where did the common law empannel
jury except to make final decision of question
of fact upon which parties were at issue, "upon
a formal assertion of rights" and where the
claim "was to be established beyond all legal
controversy" When or where, according to
the common law, was the verdict OF jury ia
ken, in order that the question found might be
| thereupOn RENTED TO some other court or
country, to be again tried and determined
! When or where does the common law require
jury to be empannelled between parties, and
to decide upon proofs made by them, without
al the same time giving final and conclusive
effect to the decisionl If the common law has
at any time or place done any Of these things,
let it be shown. If not, let there be no more
idle prating about violation Of its principles
| Upon the whole, we submit to any man of
sense, if we have not shown the whole resolu-
ton to be absurdly false in its assertions We
need not show, what is apparent upon its face
I that it is and was designed to be a mischiev-
Gus absurdity. We warn every lover Of truth
and dealing against cause which seeks
and requires for its support such confident as
sertons of known falsehood, and every lover
of the Constitution to distrust such seditious
appeals against the law Of the land, and TO
mark those who make them as men either with
out sound sense, or without just principles--as
either wickedly perverse, or the dupes Of a
| hopeless and mischievous fanaticism