Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1851-05-08

service of the slave was fact for the jury, ms
between the master and third person. why not
ms between the master and the slave? What i'll
in this very case the jury had found that the per-
son claimed was not slave We take 1t the
master would not only have failed in recovering
the penalty, but the nlledged slave would in fact
have established his liberty by verdict of jury
The slave, then, had an interest in the suit quite
as directly as the master, or the defendant on the
record, and it would be difficult to show that the
right of trial by Jury was accorded because OF
the fine involved by the form of notion, rather
than because of the liberty of the aledgcd slave
which was also involved.
But whether it is liberty or money or both which
entities any to the right Of trial by jury, one
thing is absolutely certain: Congress has no r'gh
to prohibit a state from according trial by jury in
any case within its urisdiction-whether it be to
protect a criminal against the sheriff, or free
man against man-stealers. That the case Of
person claimed as fugitive slave is within the
jurisdiction of the states, so far as to inquire by
what authority he is detained. is admitted Jury
trial follows, if the state so says, beyond "a per-
adventure. 1t is incident to the jurisdiction, and
Congress has no right or power 10 exclude it,
The Constitution contains nothing but prohibi-
lions upon Congress as 10 trial byjuy NO express
grant of power 10 Congress prohibition upon
the state and thus we deduce the conclusion
that the right Of Vermont over trial by Jury ants
own courts is intangible by Congress in any form
whatever And here again comes to our aid the
fact that Congress has not by any provision at-
tempted to restrict the power of the state in this
respect The power Of Vermont then, is indis-
putable. lis act is good.
We believe, moreover, that the Constitution
docs more than to protect the power of the state:
it guarantees he right Of trial by jury IN federal
courts-0nd on this ground we doubt the const-
tutionality of the fugitive slave act, unless that
act is most strictly construed in the first place as
applicable to acknowledged slaves only, or the
next as not barring the verdict Of jury WHEREBY
or rendered. We give o single authority; but it
Is 'pcculm"ly full, broad and sweeping.
"1hc amendment to the Constitution Of the L.
S., by which the trial by jury was secured, may.
IN lust serse be wen construed to embrace all
SUITS which are not of equity or admirably iuris
dicuon, whatever NAV be the peculiar fotm winch
they may assume to settle legal rights u. 5.
sup Court Peters. Az
Tie teioal Constitution on The right Of Aypcal
No provision of the act of Vermont has met
with so strong opposition as that which gives an
appeal from the Judge in vacation TO the next
term of court yet no par, Of 'bc act is more
reasonable or proper. The ground of objection
les. that the 81 t,uaui ia iriped.l ar DELAYED i'm
WINS '' ''s"'' WV "'l' '" "'''
ly To forget That legal proceedings ior lh' settle
meut Of legal rights are mott legally speaking
,Li,,,oc i,.ti,, q'Le,e,, ,,,r,,.s, ~ ,n "a,
pealis to secure justice, u5t TO impede or delay it.
And it is not to be presumed that justice is en-
trely on one sde-in this case with the claimant.
Though the process of habcas corpus is from its
nature summary" it does not follow that an ap-
peal may not lie. Happily, to this very point we
have the highest authority in the decision Of the
L. s. Supreme Court in the case of Holmes, al
ready quoted, to the effect that ,r,7l Of error,
(which is but ono form of an appeal lcH lie 10
State court IN a case If haboas corpus. We give
the words Of Chief Justice fancy:
" If party is unawiully imprisoned the writ
OF ha0eas corpus rs ms appropriate leg1i remedy
',-1sr ~ i c',,,'i a. ,b, ~. 49, ,..n -.
is intended, the proceedings must be summary
and the low has accordingly made themso. And
u an o,'oeI ul 9l''c GoVs,leu'' III ule e".r
tion If ths II s b,s derived an indyi5nol or
his liberty, why should il be supposed that the
summary characteroi the proceedings, by which
~ ,'l.9. ~ 80 IT, .o.', Nv ''ilO" ny
wit of error TO this Cont -CLief .Ii,ti,e TI-
ncg q. S. Supreme Court, Roimes u.s. Jeaison,
Ian refers
BY the same reasoning it may Justly be held
that an appeal may properly be given from one
State Court TO another, or from the Judge in va
cation to the next court In truth the law in
Vermont long has been, that if at the time Of the
return of the writ issued by Judge. the court is
in session, the case may be heard in court. The
appeal in this case provided Is but an extension
Of that provision, in case the decision on the
hearing in vacation is against liberty. The case
then may be carried into court by appeal As to
trial by jury, SO we say as to the right of appca
If the State has Jurisdiction so far ms to frr,nt