The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1850-08-22

Mr. BADGER, I'm his seat No doub, OF it,
MIR DAYTON The certificate itself, being cohclus,
as 10 the fact answer 10 the writ OF hdbeaS eorp
Perhaps misunderstood the senator. supposed H.
the lang uage he used thai he maintained thai wrii o.
sas corpus, as common right could be claimed b.
fugitive, and who will have the benefit OF it, without \,
Mi. MASON If the senator will allow me Vi
explain. take il for granted that any man, black
white, who declares oath that he Is held Illegally
custody ia entitled 10 a writ OF habeas pus aud M,
Is not In the power Of the legislature the Congress
the United States TO deny the WIT OF habeas corpus
law unless IN the contingency pointed OUT IN The co0s
tution-uness when insnrfeeton, Invasion, OF rebelC
makes the public safety require H. Then, lake it, n
though the writ OF habe1s corpus may Issue, and vi
ISSUE YET upoa the application OF the provisions OF l
BILL the certificate will be conclusive return 10 that wa
He is held IN custody under The psoys,ohs OF lts law
and the ha6eas corpus wiii'nol reach hin
Mr.. DAYTON resumed. Then there rs no conlroyen,
between the senator and myself as 10 what the law
1t only shows his argument - entirely outside Of h,
question: because the object OF The amendment g
the fugitive from justice The efficient benefit OF the wr
habeas corpus. The object OF the amendment is % Tk
the thing IN such condition thai the return no III
sWer 10 the wfit. =
MIR. MASON, lin his seat.) For this reason oplo,
Mr. DAYTON. / know il is for that purpose the sen
ator opposes II, and IL is for that reason favor
want The law be eectual, ami act IN the best NAME
saw that to put il in the hands of petty commss SOMA
without the power OF review, al the hand OF pe
having more knowledge than themselves isa veyms
hclent mode OF executing Inc act VIII vote chez
fully, therefore, for this amendment
Mr. MASON. Mr.. President. we are obliged 10 tail
these commissioners, whom the honorable senator dts
mates '.petty commissioners, IRON The necessity /
our situation. should be very much obliged toAa
senator if he would propose amendment 10 elevate
character OF these officers would be very much obgs
to him il he would allow me to do It by his vote
point series OF officers IN each county, with salary
be paid of the public treasury, TO discharge these (,
lnci dues-a salary adequate to the trust reposet
them and adequate TO the character OF the duty deyos
upon them Ii he will not do that, why denounce lhss|
men petty commissioners, whom, from The necessity
Of the relation borne by the slave States 10 the free
in this coniederacy, we are obliged to take
Mr.. DAYTON. Mr. President, the senator has "a
tainIy implied from my language something tbu
was intended by it, did not denounce these men; but
when look at the provisions OF your bill, whch4
points individuals simply for the purpose OF dong
Thing, know that you will not appoint high jude
characters like the judges OF your Supreme Court I'd
must, from the very necessity OF the case, take person
having limited knowledge Of judicial and legal dulsI
am not denouncng the bill, or denouDcng this pOl
vision speak OF ii as il is. say that being under Id
necessity OF framing your bill IN that way, lntrusng I
question OF freedom slavery to individuals Of this n
tied experience, il is wise and proper that there shou
be power of review. That is ALL sir. urged certan}
not for the purpose of denounclng these individuals
Now, permit me to make remark applying TO one pol
ton OF the gentlemans argument which escaped me a
iore-to that part OF his argument on the amendnst
which prohibits the introduction of the testimony Of u
fugitive slave himself. Ii it is admitted in any Stat,
senator that the provision oughto be made, that
testimony should be admitted The senator ought 10 n
further, and say the testimony OF person Interest,"
should be admitted in such question-neither the test
mony of the claimant that of the fugitive Certam
in many Slaes the testimony OF the claimant is adma
and certainly in this very District IL admitted Dos|
Certain II is, these runaways are delivered up IN ,hj
District upon the testimony OF the claimant alone Noxj
sir concede that provision is perfectly corect-hat I'D
testimony OF the fugitive ought not be received upg
this questions and the senator ought TO have no obec
that neither the testimony of the claimant nor any o
/ person Interested should ba received.
| Mr. MASON. understand this. TIE senator in,I
New Jersey { Mr.. DAYroNl takes the ground thai y
matter TO be tried and OF the hearing before the
sioners, is the question of freedom or slavery No
sir, such question is TO be tried at all None such
provided Tor IN the coRstitution-none such is povM
for in this bill fugitive may be held to service or sb
in the State from which he escaped, and he mY
wfongfuily held and whether he is rightuy or wo4
fully held frequently involves nice and delicate quesp
OF law OF the title TO the slave, the duty of the par
TO free him. The only question To be tired before u
commissioners to be appointed under this act is, whe
he held to service, and II he was, the night by wb
he was held to service not involved In the issue
manner or form. the senator says that in the District |
Columbia the affidavit OF the claimant ls received
The ground 1t IL, because, up TO this tme The Dsna
Columbia is slaveholdng community, and the necesss
character OF the laws which pertain to such communal
hold in the District oil Columbia In the District oil Coin
bra, in the States where slaves held, every one
African presumed TO be slave until the conuar
shown, and that is the law of the District OF COLUMBIA
that when claims another as his slave he claims
not with the right being prrma face IN his favor, but
the prrua faeie presumption that The party is sar
and belongs to somebody; and the affidavit Of the as
owner entities him to the custody OF the party, and M
not involve The right or title Of the slave IN any ia
Whatever.
~ DAYTON. One word as TO the point OF dIfernu
between the senator from Virginia Mr.. Mason and nj
self He says that the question to be Tried me-
question whether the fugitive is held TO service,
whether he Is held TO service rightfuy wrongfug
Now let read the provision OF the constitution, 10
whether that IS the question. Il says:
No person held to labor ia one State ssdu
sps Thereof tae must be held under the law, and
III esespiog into another shall in consequence Of a
or regulation therein, be discharged from such serves
sboc but shall be delivered up claim OF the pip
whom such service or labor may BE- due.
The service or labor must be due TO the party IN
makes the claim. Now, sir, must he not be fugNs
from service, a slave under the law OF the State ~
which he escaped Must he not owe service to
man who makes the claim Must it no, be due TO BIZ
~ the very language Of the constitution II so, na
the issue
Mr.. MASON. 1t seems to me that the object o. p
constitution only effect the custody OF the fugitive
nothing more. The whole intent Of the constitutes
to effect the custody OF the party. not IN any mode v
10 affect the title, whether IT be good title oar
one The language is simply this
No person held service labor in one State, uuda
law. thereof, escaping into another shall, in con,eqnS
OF any lazy or regulation thefein bs discharged from
service or labor, but shall be delivered up claim
parry TO whom such service or labor may be due
But after the delivery, the question OF title vii
quesnonably be tried, utterly unaffected by any afua
ton upon the question OF custody--upon the mere VI
lion OF surrender That il my opinion OF the oonsIfah
Mr. BERRIEN AS il seems to me, the que.dao,,
controversy between the senator from Virginia ~
MAsosl and the senator from New Jersey Mr.. D,rra
might be settled by single inquiry. What is aniniI
upon the part OF the from Virgins is, that b
cison OF these commissioners only the fsd 81
escape OF the fugitive, and the fact that he was bm
service or labor. The proposition OF the senator y,