Eastern times., 1850-11-28

leaves the matter as it stood under the old law.
The old law was silent also upon this point
and therefore left the courts to decide it under
the constitution. The courts held that the
jury trial must take place in the State under
whose requisition the question arose, and
whose laws were alleged to have been violat-
ed. The same construction has always been
given 10 the law for surrendering fneitives
from justice. 1t provides for sending back the
fugitive, but says nothing about the Jury trial.
or where it shall take place. Who ever sup
posed that the act abolished the right of trial
by juryl Every days practice teaches us 9TH
erwse. The jury trial is always had in the
State from which the fugitive fled. So it is
with the fugitive from labor When he re-
turns, or is surrendered under the law, he is
entitled to trial by jury of his right of free
| dom, and always has it if he demands it,
There IS great uniformity in the modes of pro-
ceedng in the Southern States in this respect
When the supposed slave sets up his claim to
the Judge or other officer that he is free, and
claims his freedom, it becomes the duty of the
court to issue It's summons TO the master to ap-
pear In court with the alleged slave, and
there to direct an issne of freedom or slavery
to be made and tried by a jury. The master
Is also required to enter into bonds for his own
appearance and that of the alleged slave at the
trial of the cause, and that he will not remove
the slave from the county or jurisdiction of the
court IN the mean time. The court is required
also to appoint counsel to conduct the cause
Tor the slave, while the master employs his own
counsel. All the officers of the court are re-
qalred Ivy law to render all facilities to the
slave for the prosecution of his suit free of
charge-such as issuing ahd serving subp9nas
Tor witnesses, &c. If upon the trial. the al
legged slave is held to be a free man, the mas
ter Is required TO pay all the costs on both
sides. If, on the other hand, he is held to be
a slave, the State pays the costs. This is the
way in which the right of trial by jury stood
under the old law, and the new one makes no
change in this respect. If the new law be re-
pealcd, that will neither benefit nor iniure the
fugitive, 50 far as the right of trial by jury is
concerned.
For these two causes-the habeas corpus
and the right of trial by jury-the common
council have pronounced the law unconstitu-
tional and void, and declared that it ought not
to be respected by an enlightened community.
have shown that neither of the objections is
true in point of fact, and that if they had taken
the trouble to read the law before they nuli-
fed it, they would have avoided the mistake
into which they have fallen. | have spoken of
the acts of the city council in general terms,
and it may be inferred that the vote was unani-
nous. take pleasure in stating that learn
from the published proceedings, that there was
barely quorum present, and that Aldermen
Page and Williams voted in the negative.
Having disposed of the two reasons assigned
bv the city council for the notification of this
law, shall be greatly indebted to any gentle
man present who Will point out any other OBJ
! ;ac,io, to ha now law which dnaS pnt y
with equal force to the old one. My object in
drawing the parallel between the new and old
law is this The law of 1893 was passed BY
the patriots and sages who framed our glorious
constitution. | have always been taught tc
believe that they were men well versed in the
science Of government, davotedly attached tC
the cause of freedom, and capable of constru
ing the constitution III the spirit in which they
made it. That act has been acqniesced in anc
enforced for more than half century, without
murmur or word of complaint in the part o
the country where | resided | repeat, will
any gentleman be kind enough to point out any
objection to the new law which might not be
urged with equal propriety TO the act of 1893
Here a gentleman rose and called the at.
temlion of Mr.. Douglass to the penalties il
The seventh section of the new law, and de
!, sired to know if there ere any such o5nox
ious provisions in the Old one. He then
r read ihe section as follows:
5 SEC. Z. And be it further enacted. Tha
5 any person who shall knowingly or willingly
obstruct, hinder, or prevent such claimant
, his agent or attorney, or any person or per
: sons lawfully assisting him, her, or them
| from arresting such fugitive from service o
labor, either with OF without process a:
aforesaid or shall rescue or attempt TO res
} cue, such fugitive from service or labor from
L the custody of such claimant his or he
agent or attorney, or other person or person:
$ lawfully assisting as aforesaid, when so ar
: rested pursuant to the authority herein Civ,
ell OF declared shall aid abet, assis
t such person, owing service or labor Il:
5 aforesaid, either directly or indirectly, 10 es
: cape from such claimant his agent or attor
t ney, or other person or persons legally au
l thorized aforesaid or pre- e-harbor con
2 cea such fugitive, so as to prevent the dis
r covery aud arrest OF such person, after notic
or knowledge of the fact that such person
was a fugitive from service or labor as aloTe
| said. shall, for either of said offences, be sub
| iect TO a fine not exceeding one Thousand
d dollars, and Imprisonment not exceeding 81
f months, by Indictment and conviction beior
f the district court of The United States for tn
district IN WHICH Sucll OHeuCe may nav
: been committed, or before the proper cour
OF criminal jurisdiction, if committed within
n anv one of the organized Territories of ih,
I, United States and shall, moreover fortei
n and pay, by way of civil damages, to the par
o " injured by such illegal conduct, the sun
l. OF one thousand dollars Tor each fugitive s.
d losl as aforesad--to be recovered by actor
l. for debt in any of the district or territors
If courts, as aforesaid, within whose jnrisdic
1t ton the said offence may have been com
it milted.''
d Mr. Douglass then read the fourth sectio,
n of the old law, and proceeded TO draw tn
|, parallel between them Each makes it
l. criminal offence TO resist the due executo
1t of the law to knowingly and wiiully o5
:, struct or hinder the claimant in the arrest @
v the fugitive; to rescue such fugitive iror
r the claimant when arrested; to harbor q
II conceal such person after notice that he 0
le she was a fugitive from labor. In this re
Of suect the two laws were substantially tn
l. same in every important particular; indeed
,r the one was almost literal copy of the 9th
l. er. can conceive of no act which woul
1t be an offence under the one that would nc
ir be punishable under the other. In tn
lie speeches last night great importance wa
le given 10 the clause which makes it an ol
Mt fence to hatbor or conceal fugitive. Yo
Y were told that you could not clothe the nah
is ed. nor feed the hungry, nor exercise the OIL
at dinary charities towards suffering humanit,
rs without mourning the penalty of the law.
or this a true construction of that provision z?
nc III, 1, w s,vs thar Won 'shall [pot1 harbOr c