Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1850-10-30
Fugitive Slave Law.

States Mr. Crittenden. lawyer OF emf
nence and an able man. J was called up
on by the President. (Mr Fillmore.) on
the passage of the Fugitive Slave -aw
by Congress. TO give his opinion or The
Constitution a!ity of that Law. especially
the 6fh Section, which requires tha, the
law shall be carried into effect scinipnt
moIestdtion, from any persons. parties
Courts. or authorities whatever. Ins last
provision was thoughtto be opposed % the
right 10 Writ Of Habeas Corpus guar
antied by the Constitution. and so far. un-
constitutional The subject is Of great
importance. and is profoundly sgitated IN
the public mind II can do no harm III
this case as it never does in any.) TO
state the objection to the law. and the va
rious opinions entertained upon it. Fair
discussion never does harm.
Let IS see how the case stands. as made
bv Mr. Crit,enden. As Attorney Gene
raj he tells the President that the Law is
Constitutional. because male only to en-
force a Constitutional Provision for the re-
clamation of Fugitive Slaves. The whole
Of his answer to the objections NAV be
summed up in few words. First: He
SAYS the Law is not opposed to the writ OF
Wajeas Corpus: because ii SAYS nothing
about il. and because. the fugt tive slave
stands upon the same ground Is any 9th
er prisoner. in relation TO the Writ. The
Judge issuing a Writ OF IIabeas Corpus
can ONLY examine into the iGcfulncSS Of
the detention, and if lawful he cannot re-
lease the prisoner. Secondly. Mr.. Crit
tenden says. that the Commissioner. or
whoever constitutes the examining Court.
is JuIiciai Tribunal for the specific
purpose Of examining the question wheth-
cr the person arrested is a fugitive slave
or not This tribunal he considers a
competent one. and the certificate issued
fnai one Of the fact. that the prisoner Is
a slave. Now. we beg the readers atten
tor. for o1e Inomen'. What Mr. Cri,ten-
den says. by way of statement is true: but
the conclusions from them may admit of
rprY great doubt. The Attorney Gene
raj performs the logical feat. whc;i is cali
ed among debater~. boGGing the question.
He makes iair statement: but he settles
nothing. He saws THAT on a Writ OF H1-
5eus cJrIus. the Judge can only inquire
into the faWfutnpSs OF the detention. Ex-
actly; bat this /nrfH!ness is the verv thing
in question! The Judge on Writ OF
Habeas corpus has right TO inquire into
the constitutionaiuy of this very act.
whether Commissioner sitting a
\ Judge mithom appeal. on the Rights Of
Man. j. IA constitutional Tribunal. aud lis
decision fHa}i This is the ver7 thing 10
be tried. Ii IS not the ipse 6{rU OF an
Attoruey General, which can determine
that question.
These are great and important issues
-: 1t
let US note c0ncession. made By Mr.
Ctittenden. which is vital 10 the case
Nr. c. SAYS. that under Writ Of Habr0s
corpus, the prisoner is on the same level
with other prisoners. and has the same
rights. This is important. because then
we can Try the question. without the pref
uiice. that he is man Of color. and as
>unel 10 be slave Now. let US con
slider the case Of man tiled under a
single commissioner. rith6W npDeal-
The power Of Congress in reference to
the Judiciary is confined to estabiishing
''lnterior Courts" to the Supreme Court
Congress has no power beyond this. But.
is this Institute of commissioners TO try
nothing but a single case.--a court with
in the legal meaning Of that term. Here
to'ore. court mas been held TO b. an
official tribunal, with a Record. Clerk.
Seal. &c, &c. Can Congress make a
"Court' out Of Postmaster or a Collect
or OF Customs. and invest him with the
robes OF Justice. with power to take awav
the liberty Of a citizen. without any appeal
or review, If it can then we have a Star
Chamber. with all the attributes. which
characterized it in the DAYS of the Stew
IL * r ain Mr. f'riffanden hos
investigated the great question which lies
at the bottom of this whole matter; wheth.
er Congress can institute an Arbitrary
Tribunal 10 decide on the liberty Of a
citizen without any resort 10 the ordinary
modes OF Irial-wilhout any appeal. and
without any hope for justice, except such
as lies in the solitary bosom Of his arbi
t-ary Judge9
Win due Difference to the opinion o.
the Attorney General. so far above US ir
legal learning. we are compelled to be.
heve. that Congress has no power TO in
stitute such a Tribunal: nor TO make an
:" inferior court : out of a mere Executive
Commiss ioner. from whom there is no ap
peal. Such tribunal would vary in no
thing from the authority of a Turks Ca
dI. and It's existence requires us 10 recu
10 first principles. and TO inquire what are
the guarantees either of the rights Of per
son. or of property That Mr.. Critten
den's opinion was honestly given. anC
that Mr.. Fillmore. as honestly signed the
Bill. we believe but. while we admi, this
the law must be subjected to all the crit
cisn1. animadversIon. which an indignan
people are disposed to make.
<-r--