Fremont weekly freeman. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1850-1853, 1850-11-02
opinion Of Mr.. Crittenden.
Attorney Generals Office,
18th Septemher. 1850.

commonly called the Fugitive Slave Bill hav
T ing passed both houses of Congress, had bee
e sub mitted to you for your consideration, ap
proval and signature, and requesting my opin
: ion whether the sirtb section of that act, ant
especially the last clause of that section con
flicts with the provision of the constitution
which declares that "the privilege of the wri
of hG6eas corpus shall not be suspended, an
less when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, tn
l public safety may require it 2"
1t is my clear conviction that there is moth
ing in the last clause, nor in any part of th,
sirth section, nor indeed in any part of the pro
visions of the act, which suspends, or was in
tended to suspend, the privilege of the writ 0
td6eas corpus, or is in any manner in conf1ic
with the constitution.
The constitution, in the second section of the
fourth article declares, that "no person held
to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof, escaping into another, shall in conse-
quence of any law or regulation therein, be
discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim of the party 70
whom such service or labor may be due
i 1t is well known and admitted, historically
and Judicialy, that this clause of the constitti-
ton was made for the purpose of securing to
the citizens of the slaveholding States the COM
plete ownership in their slaves, as property,
in any and every State or Territory of the
Union into which they might escape. (Priqq
U.s. Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania, I6 Pet.
539) ItdeyolYed on the general government,
as solemn duty, to make that security effec-
tual Their power was not only clear and full,
but according to the opinion of the court, in
the above cited case, it was srclasiUe; the
States, severally being under no obligation
and having no power to make laws or regula-
tons in respect to the delivery of fugitives.-
Thus the whole power, and with it the whole
daty, of carrying into effect this important pro
vision of the constitution was with Congress
And accordingly, soon after the adoption of
the constitution. the act of the 18th February,
1898, was passed, and that proving unsatisfac-
tory and inefficient, by reason, (among other
causes) of some minor errors in its details, con
gress are now attempting by this bill to dis
charge constitutional obligation, by securing
more efectualiy the delivery of fugitive slaves
to their owners. The sirtb and most material
section in substance declares, that the claim
ant of the fugitive slave may arrest and carry
him before any one of the officers named and
described in the bill, and provides that these
officers and each of them shall have judicial
power and jurisdiction to hear, examine and
decide the case in a summary manner; that,
if upon such hearing, the claimant, by the re-
quisite proof shall establish his claim to the
satisfaction of the tribunal, thus constituted
the said tribunal shall give him certificate,
statating therein the substantial facts of the
case, and authorizing him, with such reasona-
bic force as may be necessary, to take and car
ry said fugitive back to the State or territory
whence he or she may have escaped, and then
in conclusion proceeds as follows: "The GER
tifcate in this and the first section mention |
ed, shall be conclusive of the right of the per-
son or persons, in whose favor granted, to re-
move such fugitive to the State or territory,
from which he escaped, and shall prevent all
molestation ofsuch person or persons by any
process issued by any court, judge, magistrate,
or other person whomsoever.''
There is nothing in all this that does not
seem to me to be consistent with the constitu-
ton, and necessary, indeed, to redeem the
pledge which it contains-that such fugitiyes
shall be delivered up on claim of their own
ers
The Supreme Court of the United States
has declared that the owner, independent of +
any aid from State or Nationallegislation, may
in virtue of the constitution and his own right
Of property, seize and recapture his fugitive
slave, in whatsoever state he may find hin, land
carry him back to the State or territory from
which he escaped. (Prigg as commonwealth
J Pennsylvania, is Pet, 539.) This bill,
therefore, confers no right on the owner of the
fugitive slave it only gives him an appointed
and peaceable remedy, in place of the more
exposed and insecure, but not less auful, mode
Of self redress. And as to the fugitive slave,
ne has no cause to complain of this bill; it adds
10 coercion to that which his owner himselft
night at his own will, rightfully exercise; and
Ill the proceedings which it institutes are but
30 much of orderly judicial authority, inter-
posed between him and his owner, and conse-
luently of protection to him, and mitigation of
he exercise directly by the owner himself of
lis personal authority This is the constitu-
ional and legal view of the subject, as sane
ioned by the decisions of the supreme court;
md to that I limit myself
The act of the 18th February, 1898, before ;
Illuded to- SO far as it effects any constitutions
il question that can arise out of this bill, is
IDENTICAL with it. 1t authorizes the like arrest {
# the fugitive slave, the like trial, the like ;
Judgment, the like certificate, with the like au- $
hority to the owner, by virtue of the certif- c
ate as his warrant, to remove him to the state j
n territory from which he escaped And the ]
onstitutionality of that act, in all those par t
iculars. has been affirmed by the abjudica- S
ions of state tribunals, and by the courts of Q
he United States. without single dissent, so &
ar as know. (Baldwin's c. c. R., SIT, $40. t
l conclude, therefore, that so far as the act
f the 18th February, 1898, has been held 10
e constitutional, this bill must also be so re-
arded. and that the custody, restraint andre
noval, to which the fugitive slave may be sub a
ected, under the provisions of this BILL are all
awful and that the certificate to be granted
0 the owner is to be regarded as the act and :
ldgment of judicial tribunal having compe- n
ent jurisdiction. :
With these remarks to the constitutionalty =
f the general provisions of the bill, and the Q
onsequent legality OF the custody and confn- +
1ent to which the fugitive slave may be sub Il
acted under it, 1 proceed to bliefconsidera- I
on of the more particular question you have Il
in reference to the writ of ha6eas I
orpus, and of the last clause of the sirth sec t
on, above quoted, which gives rise to the t
uestion 81