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


of 1893, 90 respecting fugitives from justice and
persons escaping from the service of their mas
tiers" and the act of 1850, to amend and supple
mentary to the act thus entitled Our object in so
doing is to enable the reader to compare for him
self the provisions Of the respective laws and de-
eide for himself in what respect the later OF
these enactments differs from that under which
the country has lived for fity-seven years,
without any audible expression of wrong or re-
pugnance.
We will preface what we have to say by the
observation that it is judicially settled by the
highest authority that the law of 1898 is con
stitutional and that we now address ourselves
only to that class of the community who recog-
Mise constitutional obligations. With others
we do not propose to reason; nor do we propose
to 90 over the ground that we have already
trodden in the expositons that we have given
of some of the main provisions OF the law. The
; views that we shall now present are derived
, chiefly from series of very able and well
reasoned articles that have appeared in the Bos
ton Courier, which we propose so to abridge
and condense to furnish guide to the con-
sideration of the laws themselves, as they APP
pear at length in our columns
The act Of 1898 was passed by Congress,
many of whose members had assisted in form
ing the Constitution, and it was approved and
signed by WAsHINGToN. The first two sec
tons of this act provide for the extradition of
criminals and fugtives from justice Without
these, or similar provisions, every State in the
Union would be a place OF refuge for the male
factors Of every other State. Under these pro
visions, the suspected or accused person is not
entitled to jury trial in the State where he is
arrested any more than is the fugitive from
service. Each has right to n jury trial in the
State where he is carried; and the fugitive from
labor is as safe before jury in any one of the
7 slave States as he is in Massachusetts.
The remaining sections of the act of 1898
refer to the rendition of the latter class of fugi
tves. Their provisions, it will be seen, differ
! from those of the act of 1850, first, in the APP
. pointment of magistrates, under the authority of
, the United States, to carry them into effect
The act of 1898 invoked the aid of State ma
) gistrates in addition to the judges of the Su-
8 preme Court. This act was executed in good
+ faith for half century. But in lS43 the Lee
gislature of Massachusetts, enacted that no Judge
of any court of that Commonwealth, and no
Justice of the peace, should thereafter take cog
nizance, or grant certificate, in cases that may
arise under the act of Congress above quoted
to any person who claims another as fugitive
slave within the jurisdiction of that Common
wealth; and for any offence against this statute,
! by in any way directly or indirectly acting
! under the power conferred by the said act OF
Congress relating to fugitive slaves, the offender
was subjected to fine not exceeding one thou
sand dollars, or to Imprisonment in Jail not ex
ceeding one year.
! The State probably had right to pass an
act Of this description; and State magistrates,
being thus prohibited, had no right TO exercise
8 the jurisdiction contemplated by Congress.
The restriction of the jurisdiction TO the Uni
r ted States Judges alone was tantamount practi-
: cally to a repeal of the law. The claimant
! who arrested fugitive in Berkshire was com
D PEELED to travel with him to Boston, where he
! might or might not find Judge SPRAGUE or
: Mr. Justice WOODBURY.. 1t became necessary,
: therefore, TO substitute new jurisdictions, to
: take the place of those which had been abol-
> shed by the act Of 1893; and the law of 1850
substitutes commissioners appointed by the
= courts Of the United States for the State mag
i strates who had been forbidden by law to
act. It is obvious, therefore, that this amend
: ment of the law Of 1893 was required by the
+ hostile Legislation Of Massachusetts alone, even
7 if no other State had passed similar enact
r ments. Whether or not commissioners ap-
pointed by the judges are likely TO be as intel
1 gent, capable, and faithful to the Constitution
e as justices of the peace commissioned by the
: Governor, we will not undertake to discuss
II is sufficient that the State magistrates in
/ some of the States were prohibited from acting
!, at all.
The next point of difference between the two
acts is, that the latter makes it the duty of the
marshal of the United States in each district 10
e execute the process Of the magistrate by whom
I a certificate or warrant shall be granted. This
y is a provision called for by obvious consdera-
i tons Of regard for good order and the public
' peace. The claimant Of slave under the ACT
d of 1893 may arrest slave without warrant, and
. take him before commissioner OF Judge. The
, act Of 1850 gives him the alternative Of apply
. ing in the first instance 10 Judge or commits
i sioner for the warrant, and then employing
: public officer 10 serve 1t. This provision Of
!. the new law, SO far from being in any respect
, Objectionable, is a decided melioraton of the
law and the liability Of the marshal, and the old
/ duties Of the posse indicated in the statute, are
4 in strict analogy TO the liabilities Of officers and
the duties Of citizens in tho execution Of all
other laws.
The next point Of difference that we shall
notice is TO be found in the 10th section Of the
act Of 1850, which corresponds with the prac-
n tice under the law authorizing the extradtion Of
It persons charged with the commission of crime.
: On this point we will cite at length from the
i writer in the Courier, to whom we have re-