The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1850-07-25
LETTER III.

To he Editors Of The Boston alias;
GENTLEMEN; Your semi-weekly Of the st inst
contains letter of the Hon Daniel Webster, il
| which he has been pleased to refer to me. wis
70 reply To prevent all chance Of mistake,
quote the following passages:
But at the time, nothing is more false than tina
such jury trial is demanded in Of this kind by th
Constitution either in its letter In ts spirit The Cons
tuition declares that in all criminal there sha
be trial by jary The claiming of fugitive slave nc
| a criminal prosecution
The Constitution also declares that In suits AZ eomDo
Sss the trial nv -
might've slave is not snit at the law; and there
no other clause or sentence in The Constitution having tn
| least bearing on the subject.
81 have publication by Mr. Horace Manu. mem
Der OF Congress from Massachusetts, in which ind thi
sentence Speaking Of the bill before the House. he says
This BIN dedes the trial by jury secured by the Consu
ton man may not lose his horse without right 60 thi
trial but he may lose his freedom Mr. Webster speaks 70
the South and for slavery for the North for
when he sbandons this right This personal yitupersto
does not annoy but lament public Of hss
sachusets crude and confused In his legal
aud little acquainted with the Constitution Of h cOuntr,
as these opinions evnce Mr. Mann 10 be. His citation
supposed case NJ in point II y have any Analogy 70 ID
neghbors field, he cannot lead him back ctoni prsvios
frIGtb jury 10 ascertain The right Truly II what Mr. NAM
says OF provisions Of the In this pub icaio
bea test of his accuracy the that nstr
ment he would 40 vel not TO seek TO protect his pecua
notions under ts sanction but 70 appeal at as other
do 10 that higher authority which sits enthroned above thu
| Constitution and above the law"
must deny this charge of personal vitupera.
tion," and regret that MIR. " ebster, while dis
claiming annoyance at what said should he
tray 1t. believe every part Of my Letter. tc
be within the bounds of courteous and respectful
discussion. There is nothing in 1t which might
| not pass between gentlemen, without inter-
rupting relations of civlity and friendship
IT, s~N " regpet at his novel position NNA"'
dissent from his unwonted doctrines yet it abounds
ia proofs of Difference to himself | must now
however, be permitted to add that the highest
i'tlninence Becomes unenSiable, When u breeds in
tolerance of dissent, or bars out the humbles
man from free expression Of opinion.
Mr.. Webster "laments TO see public man o
Massachu setts so crude and confused in his lega
apprehensions and so little acquainted with tn,
Constitution of his country, as these opinions
evince Mr. Mann to be-" Yet he points out nj
error Of opinion. He specifies nothing as unsound
He presents no information, indictment, bill o.
particulars, or even the common counts judy
ment and condemnation alone appear He seems
to have taken it for granted that he had only t.
say was guilty, and then proceed to punish.
protest against and impugn this method Of pro
ceeding, by any man, however high against any
man, however humble.
When Mr. Webster penned his lamentations
over my crudeness, confusion, and ignorance, he
doubtless meant to deal me a mortal blow The
blow was certainly heavy; but the question still
remains, whehsT It Ill., Polyphemus struck hard
blows but his blindness left the objects of his pas
sions unframed.
But wherein do those erroneous sopinions y
consist, which MIR. Webster does not deign to
specify, but assumes to condemn Fortunately
| in writing the sentence which he quotes for ami
madversion, ] followed the precise meaning OF
| Judge Story, as laid down in his Commentaries
and in regard to the only point which Is open to
| q question, 1 took The enact words of that great
jurist lie speaks of (" the right Of trial by jury
in civil cases" as an existing right before the
seventh article of amendment to the Constitu.
tion which preserves This righ "in suits at common
law, y had been adopted.-3 Comm, 62S. Instead
of transcribing Judge Story's words, ain civil
casesn which present no distinct image to common
minds, supposed the everyday case of litigation
respecting a horse, which Is civil case;" ant
this difference Of form is the only difference be
fwssaR wishr 4sHess md TIA. NJ iAs lsaEHsA laasi
button, after reposing from this i'll tempered at
tack upon me, than to awake and find that 1t wa
Judge Story whom he had been maligning
Does not the authority of Judge Blackstone
also support my position2
"Recapture repriss" says he is another species
| remedy, by the m-re act Of the party injured.
But the public peace Is superior consideration TO
one mans private property and as II individuals wer
allowed private remedy for private In
uries all social justice must cease the strong would give
law TO the weak and every would revert 10 state
nature for these u Is provided that this natura
right Of reception shall be exerted where such
ton occasion strife and bodily contention endange
the peace Of secety H. for instance, my horse Ia taken
away and And him In common fair, public inn,
may lawfully seize him 10 my but cannot Justify
breaking open private stable or entering on the grounds
of third person, 10 take him, should he be feonionsy
stolen but must hare reoow1 10 an action at lao I'D
| Com, 40
But the opinion expressed by me on this point
does not need the authority Of any name to sup
port it and the illustration which gave Is not
only Ineligible 10 every sensible man, but Is also
| opposite 1 said "a man may not lose his horse
| This property in horse without q right to this
trial. Mr. Webster's comment IL, that this
case, III it have any analogy to the matter"
means that if mans horse "stray into his neigh
boris field he cannot ieadhim back Wahom previous
trnI By jnry 10 ascertain The ,igMp Was ever the
plain meaning of sentence more exactly changed
about end for end Mr.. Webster may pitch
summersets with his own doctrines but he has no
right to pitch them with mine said man may
not lose his horse, or his property in horse,
without a right to the trial by jury. He says
said. man cannot find or rsfake lost horse with
out a previous trial Duiee est desipere IN loco.
Or, IL is pleasant to see grave Senator play upon
words though there must be some wit to redeem IL
from puerlity.
But the childishness of this criticism is not it's
worst feature What is the great tvmh which
Mr.. Webster and his apologists attempt here TO
ridicule7 1t is that, while every man amongst
us. In regard to any piece Of property worth more
than twenty dollars, Of which violence or fraud
may attempt to despoil him, has right 10 trial
by Jury yet mans freedom, and that Of his pos
terity forever, may be wrssted from him, 90 our
law now stands without such a trial Does not
this hold a mans freedom to be of less value than
twenty dollars7 IL two adverse claimants con-
test title TO an alleged slave, whose market value
Ia more than this sum, each Is entitled TO jury
TO try the fact Of ownership. But IL the alleged
slave declares here, In Massachusetts,, that he
owns himself, he Is debsrred from this right. And
this truth, or n common illustration of Il, Mr.
Webster and his spologists think a suitable topic
for sneers or pleasantly A foreign proverb says,
that for man to kill his mother is no, ia good
taste I trust the moral and religious people Of
Massachusetts, have too much good taste to relish
Jokes on such a theme.
Mr.. BUTLER's BILL, OR KIDNAPPING MADE
EASY.
said that Mr. Buffers bill "derides y the trial
by jury. BY that bill every commissioner and
clerk Of United States court, every marshal
and collector Of the customs, and the seventeen
thousand postmasters Of the United States, are
severaly invested with jurisdiction and authority
In all parts Of the United States, to deliver any
man, woman, or child In the United States, into
custody a. a slave on the strength Of an er parts
affidavit, made anywhere In the United States
This affidavit may have been made q thousand
miles Of, by no one knows whom, and certified to
by person who never saw or heard Of the indi-
vdual named In II. A forged affidavit, or hcti-
tious affidavit would often answer the purpose as
well for how difficult and In many cases, how
impossible, toprove les spuriousnsss. Did oppres.
sion ever before conceive such a tribunal, no
countless In numbers, 80 ample In Jurisdiction, no
formidable In power7 Had bill similar to this
been proposed in the British Parliament, from
1853 to 1910, what wonld our Fathers have said
Of III Yet this bill, with some kindred amsnd-
ments, hsighten!pg It's features Of strocity, Mr.
Webster promised to support, with all it's pro-