The North-Carolina standard., 1850-05-22


found wholly Intellectual, and requires more stringen
enactments. There is, especially, deficiency in th'
number of public functionares authorized to afort
aid in the seizure and arrest of fugitves Various
States have declined to afford aid and cooperation
the surrender of fugitves from labor, the commit
tee believe, from misconception of their duty ari
sing under the onstitution of the United States
is true that decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States has given conntenance to them in with
holding their assistance. But the committee cannot
but believe that the intention of the Supreme Court
has been misunderstood. They cannot but think that
that merely that laws of the several States
which created obstacles in the way of the recovery
ngitves were authorized by the Constitution and
not that State laws aording facilities in the recovery
Of f1gitives, were forbidden by that instrument.
The non-slaveholdng States, whatever sympathies
any of their citizens may feel for persons who es-
cape from other States, cannot discharge themselves
from obligation to enforce the Constitution of the
United States. All parts of the instrument being de-
pendent upon, and connected WITH each other, ought
to be fairly and Justly enforced. If some States NAV
seek to exoneate themselves from portion of the
Constitution, other States may endeavor to evade the
performance of other portions of it, and thus the in
strument, in come of its most important provisions,
might become imperative and invalid.
But, whatever may be the conduct of individual
States, the duty of the General Government perfect
ly clear. That duty is, to amend the existing law,
and provide efectual remedy for the recovery of
fngitives from service or labor. In devising such
a remedy, Congress ought, whilst on one hand Sc
curing to the owner the fair restoration of his
abuses in the application of that remedy.
In all cases Of the arrest, within State, of per-
sons charged with offences in all of the pur-
suit of fugitives from justice from State to anoth
er State; in all of extadition provided for by
treaties between foreign powers-the proceeding is
uniformly summary. 1t has never been thought ne
cessay to apply, in of that kind the forms and
ceremonies of final trial. And when the trial does
take place, it is in the State country from which
the party has fled, and not in that in which he has
sttuton, whether the fugitive is held to service or
labor not, is to be determined by the laacs Of the
State from Which he fled; and, consequently, it is
most proper that the tribunals of that State should
expound and administer its own laws. If there have
been any instances of abuse in the erroneous
of fugitives from service labor, the community
have not obtained knowledge of them. They believe
that such have occurred and that such are not
likely to occur.
But, in order to guard against the possibility of
herewith report, (marked d. section, to be offered
to the fugitive bill now pending before the Senate.
According to this section, the owner of a fugitive
from service labor is, when practicable to carry
with him to the State in which the person is found
record. from competent tribunal. adjudicating the
facts of elopement and slavery with general des-
crption of the fugitive. This record properly at
tested and certified under the official seal of the court
being taken the State where the person owing
vice labor is found, is to be held competent and
sufficient evidence of the facts which have been adu-
dcated, and will leave nothing to be done than
to identify the fugitive.
Numerous petitions have been presented, praying
for trial by Jury in the of arrest of fugtives
from service labor in the nonslaveholdng States
has been already shown that this would be entire
y contrary to practice and uniform usage in all sim
liar cases. Under the name of popular and cher
shed nstitution-an institution, however, never ap
piled in cases of preliminary proceeding, and only in
cases of final trial-there would bea complete mock
cry of JUSTICE tar the owner of the fugitive is
concerned. 1t the trial by jury be admitted, would
draw after it its usual consequences, of continuance
from time to time, to bring evidence from distant
Places, of second new trials, in cases where the
jury is hung, or the verdict is set aside; and of
viss of the verdict and conduct of the jury by
petent tribunals. During the progress of these da-
tory and expensive proceedings, what security is
there to the custody and forthcoming of the fug
tive upon their termination? And if, finally, the
claimant should be successful, contrary to what hap
pens in ordinary litigation between free persons, he
would have to bear all the burdens and expense of
the litigation without indemnify, and would learn by
sad experience that he had by far better have aban
doned his right in the first instance, than Establish
it at such unremunerated cost and heavy sacrifice.
But whilst the committee conceive that trial by
jury in State where fugitive from service or labor
is recaptured would be virtual denial of justice to
the claimant of such fugitive, ard would be tanta-
mount positive refusal to execute the provisions
of the Constitution, the same objections do not ap
ply to such trial in the State from which he fed.
In the slaveholding States, full justice is admins
tered with entire fairness and imparality, in
of actions for freedom. The person claiming his
freedom is allowed to in forma pauperis coun-
sci is assigned him; time is allowed him to collect
his witnesses and to attend the sessions of the court
and his claimant is placed under bond and security,
is dvested of the possession during the progress
of the trial. the enjoyment of these privile
ges; and if there be any leaning the part of courts
and jures. it is always on the side Of the claimant
for freedom.
In Difference to the feelings and preiudices which
prevail in the non-slavehodng States, the commit
mittee propose such trial in the State from which
the fugitive fled, in all where he declares to
the officer giving the certificate for his retarn that he
has right to his freedom. Accordingly, the COM
mittee have prepared and report hsrewith, (marked
CO. two sections. which they recommend should be
incorporated in the fugitive bill pending in the SEN
ate. According to these sections, the claimant is
placed under bond and required to return the fugitive
to that county in the State from which he fled, and
there to take him before competent tribunal, and
allow him to assert and establish his freedom if he
can, aording him for that purpose all needful ia
cilities.
The committee indulge the hope that if the fugi.
tive bill, with the proposed amendments, shall be
passed by Congress- it will be efectual to secure the
recovery of all fugitives from service labor, and
that it will remove all causes of complaint which
have hitherto been experienced on that irritating sub.
ect. But if in its practical operation it shall be
found insufficient, and if adequate remedy can be
devised for the restoration their of fugitive
slaves, those owners will have just title to indemi
ty out of the Treasury of the United States.
1t remains report upon the resolutions in relation
to slavery and the slave trade in the District of Co
lumbia. Without discussing the power Of Congress
to abolish slavery within the District. in regard Il
which diversity of opinion exists, the committe'
are of opinion that it ought not to be abolished.
conld not be done without indispensable conditions