The republic. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1849-1853, 1850-11-15

expect. IL occasionally wrong Is done by or
through it, we endeavor to devise some better sys
tenn, and if on trial We find that we cannot, we
submit to the lesser evil.
% But il may be said that the white citizen who
is arrested in New Orleans on a requisition of
Governor Briggs may apply for the writ of habeas
corpus This is true; but the writ of habeas
corpus would not release him from officers
: Capp or Andrews, if they held him in custody
under an extradition warrant from the Cover
nor of louisiana The judges in such cases can
not, and do not, go behind the warrant of the Exc
cutive, if they find that to be in proper form, and
duly attcsted and authenticated So that it
comes finally to this, that under our own laws q
white citizen may be arrested in another State on
a warrant issued in pursuance OF complaint
made behind his back. and be transported by
force from State to State, without any possibility
of legal release redress till he reaches the State
tohere the complaint against him made. If the
provision of the act of 1850, under confederation,
be compared with the law respecting culprits, it
will appear that the personal safety of the negro
is well secured as that of the white man.
''The claimant of slave must make his applica-
ton to a Court Of Record, Cor judge thereof in
vacation,) not to an ordinary police magistrate,
or, it may be, justice of the peace, not selected
for his knowledge of the law. record is TO be
made by the court of the evidence exhibited to it,
and this record is to be attested by the seal and
clerk of the But this is not sufficient if the
judge commissioner in the State where the fu-
gitve is found requires further proof Of the den
tty of the person claimed. ! suppose that, if he
is judcially satisfied that person brought before
him is the same person described in the record,
he would not require more proof of that fact; but
if the negro should deny that he is the fugitive
claimed, have no doubt that there is no Judge or
magistrate in any free State who would not insist
on plcnary proof of such identity being produced
before him before he would grant the certificate"
With regard to the provision for paying ten
dollars to commissioner when he decides in
favor Of the claimant, and five dollars if he de-
cides against him, the reason for the differ
ence, no doubt, was found in the fact that in
the case of an adverse decision there would be
less labor to perform, and the fees were intended
to be proportloned to the work done. To sup
pose that any officer appointed under this law
would sell freeman into slavery for the extra
five dollars, is to suppose that the judges are to
appoint commissioners from among men who
are only fit for the Jail or the gibbet. If such
monsters can be found among the legal profes
sion, or any other class in the United States, it
must be among those men who make this objec-
ton to the law because they believe themselves
capable of being operated upon by such an in
ducement to the commission of such crime.
The question of the habeas corpus, in con
neXion with the law of 1850, has been 50 eff
fectualy disposed Of by the unanswerable opinion
Of Mr. Attorney General CRIrTENDEN, that it
hi Il 60 H. IL
regard to other and minor topics suggested by
the law that we have not yet noticed, they are
treated 50 succinctly by the writer in the Cou-
rter, that we shall transfer his argument on
these points entire to our columns.
al have endeavored with candor, to compare
the acts of Congress of 1893 and 1850, and to
hbt the real differences between them; mean
by this such provisions found in the latter
act, and not substantially embraced in the
former. There are undoubtedly several particu-
lars in which the act of 1850 is rendered more eff
fective and stringent than that of 1898; but these
are not entirely new provisions. ! refer, for in
stance, to the increase of the penalties for
cealing slaves, obstructing or preventing their
being arrested, and for rescuing them after hav-
ing been arrested. Also, the provision for the
claimant to recovery by action Of debt one thou
sand dollars for each slave lost by him through
the unlawful interference of others. Perhaps the
common law would enable the master to recover
by action in the the value Of the service
of the slave (where this relation is protected by
law, it is by the Constitution Of the Uni
ted States) from one who, contrary to the law,
had deprived him of that service; and the act
of 1893, in terms, save ''to the person claim
ing such labor or service his right of action for
& MT of trhi NH nfth epo
The injuries here referred to are knowingly or
wilfulIy obstructug or hinderng the claimant
his agent in arrcsting fugitive from labor, in
rescuing him when arrested, pursuant to the
thority given in said act, (of l793) in harbor-
ing concealing him after notice that he is fu-
gitive from labor aforesaid. The act of 1893,
besides saving to tho claimant his common law
right, gave him in addition the right to recover
Of any person who committed either of the tree
passes above detailed the sum of five hundred
dollars; and this penalty has frequently been
forced in Ohio and other free States, by verdict Of
the jury. Indeed, it is but few weeks since that
the newspapers contained statement of such a
recovery being had in a trial before Mr.. Justice
Mclean, in the State of Ohio, on which occasion
that learned judge enforced by his charge, in the
cearest manner, the duties Of the jurors in respect
to said law. See also in % and Sd vols
McLenn's Reports.
"The act Of 1850 gives the penalty Of one thou
sand dollars to the claimant only in case the slave
shall be lost to him by the acts of Others which
are declared by the statute to be illegal; but for
the public offence it subjects the offender to fine
to the United States not ereeeding ono thousand
dollars, and imprisonment NOT exceeding six
months. Perhaps, on reflection, this provision
ought TO be olassed among those which arc new;
bat as IL confcrs the district Judge the au-
thority TO mitigate the punishment, at his disorc-
ton, TO one hour one day imprisonment and
one cent or one dollar fine, and "a il gives the
claimant the right TO the other penalty
only in the event ofhis being actually and finally
deprived of his slave by the unlawful conduct Of
the offender, (for each fugitive iosi,') THE
clause Of the act can hardly be deemed very ar
bitrsry or severe, by those who feel the obiiga-
tons Of the Constitution and the laws enacted by
Congress in conformity to it,
III the act Of 1850 is more stringent and severe
than that Of 1893, il seems 10 me that VIC have